CptnChan

This is a pretty awesome commercial for PlayStation that's airing right now:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdW1OuZ1U0
 
In addition to just being visually stunning, his monologue is just down-right radical.
Why can't we have more things like this?

I also think it's a rapidly proliferating problem.
 
I think it's actually a reaction against altruism, though.  Altruism is THE dominant moral philosophy; a child growing up anywhere in the world today would be hard-pressed to find any alternative, at all.
And altruism is antithetical to joy or pleasure; it's all about pain.  Note which of your friends blamed capitalism.
 
And note that it almost invariably goes hand-in-hand with some reference to mortality; "live for the moment, THIS moment- there isn't any other".
 
Philosophy, specifically morality, is the framework that provides some context by which man can choose and plan his long-range goals.  But what if the only morality you know demands that you choose nothing selfishly, do nothing antisocial and be willing to part with anything you earn?
 
My pet theory is that this specific phenomenon you've mentioned is sort of a desperate cry for life, REAL life, in a world of death-worship.  I think it's the result of an implicit rejection of all philosophy, as such, which is caused by an implicit rejection of altruism (to someone who thinks that altruism=all morality).

Read "The Missing Link" in PWNI. Ms. Rand concretizes how the anti- conceptual mentality disconnects one from causality.

Sometimes a Google site-search works better than the Forum's in-built search box (top-right).

In case someone has not noticed, there's a Google custom search box at the bottom of the page. It is a site-specific search for the forum.

Today, I noticed it was not working right. Having updated it, I thought I'd post so that others who thought it was broken know it is fixed.

He is one of my favorite actors which is why I tried to watch him play Arthur Rimbaud in Total Eclipse.  I got about half way through and had to stop.  His acting wasn't the problem, but the character he played was so annoying and pointless.  I read on his wikipedia page that he is going on vacation from acting to save the planet, so you might get to watch him plant a garden some day soon.

Madness, I tell you. Inputting text into an electronic device should take no more than two buttons: a dash and a dot.
Sure, it would take a while to write a novel in Morse code, but the simplicity would be worth it. Because simple is good, and complex is bad.

If he had an unflawed specimen, then he would know that his thesis that "everyone is flawed" was incorrect, right?

And this is what google translated it back to:
 
The statement is equivalent to the denial of knowledge so knowledge of the claim that almost all of which of the report we are aware of

Lets hope that they're actually plotting to take over the world. 

that was my question

Thanks, Tony. I agree with what you say.

One thing I frankly have never understood is why Rand would be totally exonerated because she obtained verbal approval of the affair from Barbara and Frank. Really? That makes whatever she did after that hunky dory? Suppose the rumors are true (and I obviously don’t know one way or the other) that the affair drove Frank to become an alcoholic. Was it then okay for Rand to continue the affair because he had given her the go-ahead? I have a real problem with that. Rand told PLAYBOY that she would step in front of a gun pointed at her husband. Then why would she not care about the pain he may have been enduring?

To repeat, I am only speculating here. I could be way off base. Perhaps the affair did not cause Frank much in the way of personal anguish. Anne Heller (Ayn Rand and the World She Made) told me she believed Frank was hurt more by Rand’s refusal to let the affair die than the affair itself. Maybe so. I just know from personal experience how excruciatingly painful infidelity can be.

I always enjoy the random quote on the front page but this one struck me kind of odd.
I don't remember where it is from but I'm pretty sure the source would have the word I underlined here being antagonist.
Wouldn't make a thread about it but I thought it was an amusing kind of error.

I don't think that's true. Branden was not "generally dishonest about his emotions towards Rand," but toward the end of their romantic years together he was confused about how he felt about her and about the fact that his feelings toward her had changed. Keep in mind that she was something of an authority figure in his life. She was his employer and mentor and was acting as his counselor in regard to his personal romantic relationships while having an affair with him. His entire concept of romantic love had come from her theories. He was being expected to follow her notion of romantic love, and he was being pressured and unfairly judged when he was discovering that that notion wasn't meshing with his reality.

At worst, he might have been guilty of withholding from Rand the information that he was having a romantic relationship with someone else (Patrecia). But that relationship was actually none of Rand's business since she didn't have a promise of exclusivity from Branden -- she was not married to him and they had not publicly entered into any romantic contractual agreements, so he did not need her consent to see anyone else, nor did he owe her any right to be informed of any other relationships that he might have had with anyone else.



If there was nothing wrong with the relationship between Rand and Branden, why did they keep it a secret? Why did they hide it from even their closest friends and associates? Why did Rand put Peikoff into the position where he went out and publicly denied the affair? Rand often publicly boasted about her relationship with her husband, saying that he was her highest value and such. Why did she not do the same with Branden if there was nothing wrong with multiple romantic relationships? The actions of those involved gives the impression that they were very concened about what others would think, no?

J

Note to moderators: If you delete this post, will you please give me the courtesy of notifying me and explaining why rather than doing it anonymously and without notifaction or explanation? Thanks.

Here is Ayn Rand's statement about the theme of Les Miserables:



Later in the same book, she says:



Tom Hooper, the director of the new film, did not rely on the musical as his only source material. He relied heavily on Hugo's novel:



Ayn Rand would have loved this "horrific" film.

A few breif add ons to your responses:

1. For the vast majority of parents, education will almost certainly be the second most important thing to get for a child after basic necesities. There is no reason whatsoever that no market would exist for cheap school in a free economy. A great example of this in action is this Cato study (http://www.cato.org/...ncome-countries) where researchers examined profitable private school in the slums of Kenya, Ghana, India, and Nigeria, literally some of the poorest places on the planet. In the cases where there were public schools, the private schools significantly outcompeted them, even when the public schools were "free."

2. At a certain point, a lost cause is a lost cause. Nobody likes to admit it, but if the parent doesn't give a shit (which, as you say, is an extremely small minority), then unless the kid is a rare anomaly, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Why is forcing children to go to shitty slum public schools any better than the alternative? In most instances, it is preferable to let the kid enter the work force during high school and acquire some level of experience, skill, and references.

3. Not all jobs require basic math or reading skills. And besides that, I would be willing to bet that in a free economy, there would be virtually universal K-8 education anyway due to its low cost and high demand.

4. Same old, same old.


An important element to stress in these conversations is that education has been so regimented and standardized, that it would look unimagineably different in a free market. Why do kids today sit in rows of desks? Why do they go to school five days a week between roughly 7:30AM and 3:00PM? Why are all taught minor variations of the same established subjects? Why are classes regimented by age group as opposed to ability or interest? Why do schools waste sizeable portions of their budgets on sports while leaving more important subjects underutilized? Why, Why, Why???



EDIT:

If you really want to throw a screwball, you can also try bringing up the theories of Charles Murray. Put simply - education quality is close to irrelevent in terms of success. Schools are not artists who mold clay children into beauiful sculptures, but are art apraisers who simply grade alredy existing statues.

Jiro Dreams of Sushi. (On Netlifx Instant watch)

This is hands down, one of the most virtuous, non-apologetic, inspiring documentaries, I have ever watched.
The man is so inspiring, and the things he says about succeeding in business can apply to anything, not just the culinary field.
I got serious Roark and Rearden vibes listening to him talk. So awesome, just watch it.

http://www.rottentom...reams_of_sushi/


Minor complaints:
#1. There's a small part where he discusses the lower quantity of fish available, and mentions needing more regulations to prohibit over-fishing. Although his solution may be flawed, his concern for supply to his business is understandable.

#2. It seems that he has kind of forced his sons to take over his legacy. At one point the son reveals he had dreams of an entirely different occupation. Although his sons have become masters of the sushi world, it's a little sad, since it seems they might have preferred a different occupation if it weren't for their father's influence. (Still, there's not enough evidence to prove this, it's just a sort of vibe I got)

Dangit I had this idea first....

Yeah you said it in a different way. Don't feel plagerized please.

No true Scotsman would fail to capitalize Scotland or misspell Scottish. You're cover is blown, Joshua. You'd have us think you hail from the land of the heroic Calcagus, when Epimenides is your true countryman, deny it all you like.



In any event, Nicholas Dykes is from Herefordshire, that's pretty close to Scotland. Also, John Galt was Scottish, though I suppose that doesn't count for much.

And there is the confession.

Look kid, looting can only be done to people, thus fracking is not looting. Fracking is a method of using property to extract one substance from another.

Next, it does not matter, even if you are right, because a person can dispose of their property as they see fit. People can frack, fuck, or frell their property all they want. Your whims are not a substitute for their right to live their life and dispose of their property in the pursuit of living.

What is real is if someone violates my property rights. If you are right and the latest and greatest from the Granola Death Cultists is true, and the process somehow does foul my property as a side effect, then I'm already protected under the law and can sue them to repair my property. Plus I’ll likely get more from the damages and get a nice vacation out of the deal.

In fact, I hope someone does start fracking next door just so I can take Mrs. Spiral on a trip. Maybe Vegas again. Good times.

So I don't need alarmist nonsense. I have common sense which is already in place.

Everything else is just a desire to use government force to make people obey you, since you know better than them - I.E. strip them of their moral right to use their property as they see fit. When you realize who is trying to force others to obey them, you quickly discover that the greedy and evil person is the face in the mirror.

I suppose this thread will do for posting a review. If there's to be a single thread for that here than this can be moved later.

I went to a 2:30 showing. There were 4 people there, including me, but there was hardly anyone in the theater period, so that doesn't mean much. I find that I'm in agreement with Brian Doherty's basically positive review:
http://reason.com/ar...lection-edition

Overall it's better than Part 1. The problem of clunky rhythm, particularly with transitions, remains in evidence, but I found it's less bothersome than in Part 1. I know I had less occasion to cringe, and more lumpy throat moments this time around, a better ratio. I remember in particular thinking there was some clunking early on, but then it hit a good stride and everything was really working, and then came the money speech. Now I thought Morales performed it very well, but the transition into it didn't click, I think too much from the book is cut there. I wish more of the speech itself had made it in too.

The new cast is better overall, I say Francisco, Rearden, Mouch, and James are upgrades, Eddie and Lillian are equal, and Dagny, well, someone was bound to end up in the minus column. Schilling was too young and lacked some for gravitas, Mathis is maybe too old, or maybe the right age, but simply isn't as nice to look at, and doesn't project that missing gravitas. So much screen time goes to her reaction shots, and she simply doesn't light up the screen, not enough. Quentin Daniels and Cheryl Brooks were both fine, Mr. Thompson was perfect. Jeff Allen hit a good note, though he's more gainfully employed than in the book. I thought they made a good adaptation move there. I know there were a lot of cameos in it but I don't think I caught so many of them. Biff from Back to the Future was in there (he really ought to play Cuffy Meigs, come Part 3). Teller got a line or two (such an ordinary voice! I figured he would sound like Kermit), and a long reaction shot. I didn't see Michael Shermer or Grover Norquist, though I know they're supposed to be in there.

I thought they did a good job with the climactic train wreck sequence, good buildup, nothing off to blunt its impact.

I felt the music was better this time around. But I'll trade Richard Halley's appearance for a more filled out wedding scene any day. His music sounded to me rather like a what if Prokofiev mated with Gershwin exercise. It was fine, but then again James Taggart seemed to be enjoying it (it's his date night with Cheryl); shouldn't he be listening to the parody version?

To wrap up, if you're reading this to try and decide whether to go see it: Go, and consider that the Doctor's orders.

I enjoyed "the book of lost things". It's not especially profound or philosophically stimulating, but I immediately found the premise to be really cool and wanted to read more. It's a compilation of most of the classic Brothers Grim fairy tails, but mutated drastically.
A fun story and an exciting climax. Hope someone makes a movie of it, because there are some scenes I would love to see.



http://www.amazon.com/Book-Lost-Things-John-Connolly/dp/1442429348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336890632&sr=8-1

Ah, I didn't mean that intellectual stimulation should be constant, only that other non-job related activities aren't simply unproductive, crosswords were just an example because I use that as a form of leisure. Hanging out at the beach and enjoying your feet in the sand is plenty fine, and even has psychological health benefits by being mindful of your environment as it is. Time is not being wasted. Or you could chat with a friend about a movie you saw last week, but even that too can help to jog your mind in a relaxed setting. What would be unproductive is consistently taking actions that really go no where, which depends a lot on context.

Here's a follow-up. It's not really worthy of it's own thread, so I'm just putting it here.

Mine started at 19. Think of it as a way to explore the wonderful world of hats