non-contradictor

That's more than a little creepy. I went to preschool at my local Church, but I can't remember anything from preschool, let alone whether or not they tried to indoctrinate me. I think I went to Sunday school, too, but I can't remember that either. I think it may have had some sort of effect on me, though, because even though I've never believed in God, I used to think that I should. I went to confirmation class for a little while in junior high because I was trying to acquire faith. I gave it up as a bad job rather quickly, and haven't looked back since. Now, when I'm accosted by a religious person, I tell them that I'm incapable of believing in God. I gave it a good try, but I failed. Too bad, eh? Makes me laugh now at how much of an idiot I was being, trying to make myself believe. I don't even know where the desire came from. My father's an Ayn Rand fan and my mother, though a Christian, never taught me much religion. One of my favorite stories from my childhood I've heard from her, is four year old me shouting : "Who's Jesus?" in the middle of my cousin's very Catholic first communion. On second thought, maybe the Sunday school wasn't so effective after all.

This is what I was trying to get at. Yes, public schools are intent on crippling a child's learning. However, the students, for the most part, sit there and let them, and that makes me angry. Plenty of them know that they aren't learning anything, that school is boring, useless, a waste of time, etc. But they don't do anything. They don't say anything. They don't care. They accept the dependency and the idea that it is the school's job to teach them. Plenty of them aren't even angry. They are bored and they don't care, and I can't say for certain whether they got this attitude from their parents or from their teachers. But can we really blame it all on the parents or the teachers? Doesn't that take away the credit from the kids who actually survive with their minds intact? I'm not arguing with you that the education system is a horrible, evil mess. But I still don't think that we can absolve kids who would rather watch American Idol than read Les Miserables of all guilt for their ignorance. We can be angry over the hours they have to waste in school, certainly, and I have a personal rage against that, but life is not all school.

I'm tired of strict partisanism in general. Before the last congressional election, my friend and I went and looked up several candidates' stances on things like education, abortion, the draft, etc. It was interesting to find how many people within the same party disagreed with each other, or even agreed with people from the other party. As DavidOdden said, just because one nutter who calls himself a Democrat wants to reinstate the draft doesn't mean they all do. That said, I still don't like them. What shocked me is this: Does he actually think that a universal draft would change that? And anyway, trying to strong-arm congressmen into pulling out of Iraq is not even an attempt at a reason to take away peoples' rights. (Not that such a reason exists).

Riddle ~ The ultimate selfless person. He wants power over others. He does not live, he avoids death. If he won the war, I think he would find that it would not get him much. Snape ~ The jury's still out. At worst, he's the ultimate pragmatist--betraying where it suits him. At best, he did what he did because he knows something that we don't. I'm inclined to believe the latter. I don't think a world with Riddle as king would suit Snape at all. Harry ~ Not an Objectivist hero, but no one ever said he was. He stands up for what he believes in. He fights to save his friends, no matter the cost. Some people say he's sacrificial, but I don't see it, really. He values his friends enough to not want to live without them. For a kid that spent ten years of his life utterly alone, I don't think that's an unreasonable thing. If he wanted to be sacrificial, he'd let Ginny come with them to save her happiness, even though it would kill him if she died. Of course, that's still a possibility, but I think that if he changes his mind, he'll probably find that he wants Ginny with him, and not just change it because it's what Ginny wants him to do. Just my initial thoughts.

Maybe it wouldn't necessarily be an age issue, but the problem is is that most people I've encountered in the "public school prison system" don't care that they're not learning anything. I have a lot of resentment for the public education system, but on some level the students have to take some responsibillity too.

Wonders will never cease. So to be a Christian *Objectivist* (that's not actually possible, yeah?) you either have to: a) Have never read Ayn Rand Not understand what she wrote about religion c) Think she didn't really mean what she wrote about religion So my question is, which brand of delusion is preferred by that forum? I really don't get it. Weird.

Gods, Zak, I just read this and I almost cried. It's very poignant, and I didn't find the tone overly negative, just sort-of... longing, I suppose. I know the feeling well. I was talking to my mother about high school reunions one day. She said that the only reason she'd ever go would be if she had done something spectacular to show off. I said that at my old school, I didn't care what anyone thought of me, so I wouldn't have gone to a reunion no matter what I did, because I didn't care then and I won't care 20 years from now. I think it's easier for me to say that though, now that I've made some friends in school that I respect and whom I would actually like to see again in the 20-years-from now type of situation. I know only too well the kind of desperate hope that accompanies being utterly alone in a room full of people who just don't get it. If you don't like the tone, then maybe you should meet a girl on the balcony. This reminds me of Dagny's first ball. I cried when I read that, too. I wrote a story like this about my first high-school dance. My sophomore English teacher suggested I submit it to the school literary magazine. It was rejected. I read the other stories in that magazine; I'm not surprised or upset that they didn't like mine. Great job with this!

It'd be a bit hypocritical of me to be disturbed by your age. I'm 17, but I was 15 when I first joined this forum. (I had to go look that up; I can't believe it's been that long already.) I wouldn't worry too much about being excluded from internet groups. The problem with internet socializing is that it gets out of control fairly easily and that leads people to restrict their sites more than is probably ideal, in order to preserve their member base. Because, honestly, how many other kids your age do you know that would be able to have a decent discussion on serious topics with adults? It's the curse of being precocious. I've never encountered that problem personally, however. Welcome to the forum!

"The veil" is the veil in the Department of Mysteries that Sirius fell through in OotP. It's generally accepted as a portal to the afterlife, or something similar. I'm not sure JKR has explicitly stated as such, but it's pretty clear from what happens to Sirius. There are lots of theories that involve either Harry, Voldemort, or various horcruxes being pushed/walking through "the veil." That's the most popular method for Harry killing himself to get rid of the supposed horcrux. *shudder* Speaking of which, I'm also curious whether a dementor's kiss would be able to rid Harry of the supposed horcrux.

Not that he could, anyway, if Voldemort was still alive. He's never going to be able to live for himself until Voldemort is dead and gone, not unless he leaves Ginny and his friends and runs away to hide in a random country somewhere a la witness protection, and that's no choice at all. If he has to die to free himself... Let's just say I won't be altogether happy about that either. The injustice of it would be tragic indeed. Voldemort's henchmen aren't just going to go home and cry once their master's *dead* though. At least, Bellatrix isn't, and I suspect a few more might believe in his immortality this time, since he didn't die the last time. Bellatrix is also pretty much nuts, so she's just going to go after Harry until she's dead or has Voldemort back; she's almost as bad as he is. She wouldn't need to think that Harry's a horcrux. She wouldn't even need to know about the horcruxes. She'd just go after Harry because he's there and well, Harry. Not that this matters much anyway, because Harry'd never risk it. Though, I don't think the horcrux thing in itself presents much of a problem. My current favorite theory is that Harry, in killing Voldemort's body, will create his own horcrux, only instead of splitting his own soul, he'll split Voldemort's off of his, and then throw that horcrux through the veil, or destroy it some other way. EDIT: fixed html/bbc

My advice is to apply to a college, such as MIT, that doesn't require you to have finished high school to be accepted. They allow people to apply as Juniors. I would try that before doing something as drastic as dropping out. If you're accepted, then you won't have to worry about high school anymore anyway. If that doesn't sound like a good option to you, then I don't know what to tell you. I was in a similar situation three years ago. I switched schools because I couldn't take it. I'm not sure what I would have done otherwise. Proabably just been miserable, which is obviously not anyone's first choice. I wish you well, whatever you choose to do.

I'd have to agree with Jennifer's second suggestion. Dumbledore probably set up Hogwarts to allow "flooing" from No. 12 Grimmauld in case of an emergency, or just to be able to fire-call whoever was on duty at headquarters should he need to check up on things. Phineas Nigellus wasn't all that reliable of a phone-replacement.

That would make us the followers then, yeah? You know, continuing to mention being banned really isn't flattering. Reminds me of my kid sister who looks at me while doing something she knows she's not supposed to, just waiting for me to yell. It may not be what you intended, but that's the impression you're giving. I'm curious as to your motivations. If you'd had such bad experiences on Objectivist boards so far, isn't that an indication that they aren't the place for you? If you're so keen on being your own individual, why is challenging Objectivists so important? Also, I'd like to point out that just because someone chooses not to "challenge" you doesn't mean they can't. We're speaking of forums, after all, and people have other things to do besides discuss "Sartrian Existentialism" with you. Which brings me to my next question: do you speak to everyone in this defensive manner, or do you reserve it for Objectivists? I find it rather tedious. That said, I think it's possible for a non-Objectivist to get along reasonably well here. Just be aware that some people are here precisely so that they don't have to rehash the fundamentals of Objectivism in every conversation. Don't expect everyone to be willing to debate.

HaPpY BiRtHdAy!

I read the first one when I was 11, and I've sort of grown up with the series. My sister's only two, and I sometimes think it's sad that she'll probably read all the books in one go. I don't think it would be as much fun that way. I appreciate different things in them now than I did when I was 11. As for Snape, I think he's probably not a true Death Eater. He's a jerk, certainly, and probably not very "good" in Harry's sense of the term, but he spent his life being bullied by (apparently) his father and (definitely) the Marauders. I doubt he's a big fan of Voldemort's bullying, or even Dumbledore's more subtle version, for that matter. He's on his own side. Dumbledore said that he trusted Snape, and I could be wrong, but I don't think he ever said what he trusted Snape to do. It's implied that he trusted Severus to "be on the right side" or however you want to put it, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. He could have just trusted Snape to do whatever possible to defeat Voldemort. Even kill Dumbledore. Whether this makes him "evil" or not... I've never liked him. But I don't want Dumbledore to have been so ridiculously wrong. Then there's Harry the (maybe) horcrux. I think we can eliminate the christ parallel. (Dumbledore took that part). But even still, I'm not eliminating the possibility that Harry will die. He was a mess at the end of book 6, and if he doesn't show some signs of improvement soon... Dumbledore tried to tell him in book 6 that he has to go into the fight knowing that he wants to be there. Otherwise, he'll get dragged in and it won't much matter whether he comes out alive or not. At the end of book 6, it seemed like he'd reverted back to the "the prophecy is making me" attitude, which can't end well. Hopefully his friends can snap him out of it, or I don't think he'll survive the series. What would be more depressing? A Harry that fought and died, or a Harry with PTSD? For characters I think will die, Lupin and Hagrid top my list. Lupin, because he's lived through so much already and JK does seem to be going the way of wiping out that whole generation. Hagrid, because there's an alchemy-based theory that goes like this: The steps of alchemy are black, white, red, gold. So... black for Sirius, white for Dumbledore (Albus). Then we have red, Rubeus Hagrid. If you buy into this theory, things don't look so great for Harry-the-Golden-Boy either, though who knows? Gold is supposed to be the elixir of life. I think Ron and Hermione are safe-ish, unless they BOTH die, which I don't think will happen either. How much can Jo dump on poor Harry before his ability to survive becomes too unbelievable? I think I'd draw the line before Ron, Hermione and Ginny. Though I don't really know until I have it, do I? *sigh* That turned out longer than I intended. See what happens when I start talking about HP?

It means that I'm in the summer between Junior and Senior year. I'm not technically a senior at my school until Convocation in August.

Hello! I'm in high school as well (rising senior). Welcome to the forum. I'm sure you'll enojoy yourself here.

Arkanin~ Please attribute your quotes.

That's what I've heard. I'm not very concerned one way or the other though. I usually check "other" unless they have a bi-racial option (most don't seem to). It's pointless though. I may be half asian, but I was raised by my father whose family has been in the US so long he doesn't even know where they came from in the first place. No native American though. Thanks though; I was curious.

Thank you very much for posting this! I'm a rising senior and very anxious about the whole college business. Strangely enough, I'm a little bit relieved that they recalculate everyone's GPA. My school doesn't provide them, or class rank. All of our classes are honors. We also don't have many BS classes. There's two semesters of gym and one semester of fine arts. The rest is math, science, English or history. Two questions: Do admissions officers make any distinctions (besides in calculating GPAs) between high schools? ie. Do they know that one school is better than another and if so, do they take it into consideration for borderline students? Also, is it true that "Asian" is no longer considered a minority by many colleges?

What's wrong with The Rainbow Fish? If they had some political agenda in that book, it must have failed, because I don't remember it and that was one of my favorites. Actually, I don't remember what the book was about at all. Hmm.

I realize I'm jumping into this rather late, but the discussion seems interesting, so I hope no one will mind. I consider myself a student of Objectivism. I have not yet found a part of Objectivism that I disagree with, though I admit that I have left much unstudied; philosophy is not my chosen field. Yours is a rather odd question. An irrational person would not recognize a rational position for what it was, so it makes little difference whether they ever see one or not. I could, as a scientist, prepare an experiment to test for something that makes absolutely no sense; I designed the experiment irrationally. I may, by some fluke of coincidence, arrive at the correct conclusion, but I will have no way of knowing that it is correct, so I will treat the data in the same way as I would have if the conclusion had been incorrect. The conclusion will be irrational, thought it is correct, because I have no way of backing up its correctness. Similarly, Objectivism, pulled out of thin air with no reason to substantiate it, would not be Objectivism at all, but a series of blind assertations (which happen to be correct).

Translators aren't very reliable. They're good for one or two words, but for full sentences they routinely fail miserably. I'm in my third year of French, so I could help a bit with that.

I'm not eligible to vote yet, but from what my parents tell me, my town's (county's?) local elections are for people like the coroner, county clerk, and most of all, school referendums. There was a big uproar a little while ago because my old school district was going to eliminate sports and extracurriculars if it didn't get more money. In that case, I would probably vote; I have a particular animosity for my old school district and really public school districts in general. As for who is county clerk or coroner, I wouldn't vote because I don't know what those people do. I would perhaps find out thier job functions and then vote, but as it stands now... no.

"This is school, Mr. Potter, not the real world." Very well put, inspector. I'm a junior in high school and getting ready to apply to colleges. I'm slightly worried about this kind of problem. My current high school requires English and History, even though it's a school for math and science, but after sophomore year, students are allowed to select their own science courses and may take math electives if they wish. Senior year, we're allowed to choose our English and History classes as well. I don't particularly want to go back to the days of "Oh, you're a Freshman? Well then you have to take English Literature, even if you're going to be a Biochemist and have probably taken English Literature a few times already." That's what my old high school was like. You know what the most ridiculous requirement is though? Physical Education. If I want to say fit, I can do it on my own thanks. My parents are not paying money so that I can play dodgeball for the hundredth time. I can easily see why the "well-rounded" education garbage would leave a lot of people burnt-out and bitter. In my experience, you get a lot of schools that will both expect to prioritize your classes and simultaneously make it impossible for you to do so and still maintain the GPA you need to get into round two of the well-rounded education. They don't seem to understand that one person can't do everything at once, and what's more, they shouldn't want to. I know plenty of kids that are "lazy" simply because they've been forced into classes that don't interest them or are too easy. I used to be one of them. So they do something they enjoy instead of doing their homework. I'm of the opinion that if I hadn't had A's at my old school, I probably would have gotten in a lot of trouble. I slept in geometry and read novels in World History. I don't think I actually know anyone who is truly "lazy," as in, has an aversion to work. I'd like to think that most people would do the work if they saw what was in it for them. The others I'm not very concerened with anyway.