Nxixcxk

Your error was that you tried to reason with someone who denies it .

As parents you have an obligation to your children. If divorce has been shown to negatively effect a child's health and mental integrity, then I think it is out of the question. However, if the relationship is so terrible b/t the two of you that the children would be worse off watching their parents try and get along as oppose to simply separating, than maybe it's time to separate. A lot must be taken into account before making the decision, good luck.

Good points softwareNerd...when the time comes (whenever I get a gf and we decide to have a kid), I'd like to sit down and have a chat with you about child rearing and what you've learned from it . (I've read some of your other posts that relate to it, very intriguing!) Geoff, I'd like to point out, if you haven't already gathered this, that taking someone's word for an event that may or may not have occurred is different than faith, if faith is defined as the absence of reason.

Nice points ^ ^, and I think that is a good rationalization of why one ought to small talk. I used to be against small talk, but then I wondered how else one goes about meeting someone. I tried, "so, what do you think about the axioms?" but they always just looked at me confused.

Wow, this stuff is fascinating! LOL!! Thanks for elaborating on the ludicrousness of it, but still, I must point you humorously back to my objection in parthensis . Hah, thanks for elucidating such an obvious point...for some reason I was visualizing myself on a sq.foot of land thinking, "Yes, this is sufficient!" I forgot to ask the most apparent question, however, sufficient for what? Also Dismuke, in another part of your post you mention "right of ways" so that people can access their property if surrounded by someone else's. But now I must wonder who owns those 'right of ways.' The reason why I am asking these seemingly out-of-context questions is b/c non-Objectivists give them to me all the time and I have difficulty responding to them in a way that satisfies me and my listener. Another example: Repeatedly, I am ask the question, "Under capitalism, what happens when a grocerie store corporation (Sam's Club, for instance), offers such great products at low prices that the corporation eventually buys out all other corporations and small businesses, and then, since they are the only operating food chain in America, jacks the prices up on all their commodities and offers bread at $15 a loaf?" I will respond by saying that it wouldn't be in the corporation's interest to jack up the price of their product b/c it would make consumers unhappy (So? It doesn't matter if the consumer is unhappy b/c he has no place else to buy food). I would also say that a CEO of such a successful corporation would never do this; his previous actions simply don't lead us to believe that he is capable of such an act (Maybe he might, people have an ability to do weird things). Furthermore, if people had to spend more money on food, they would perforce spend less money elsewhere, and so other businesses would decline, and the overall cost of other products would increase since there isn't as much competition, and mind you, paying more for everything else is NOT in the interest of the CEO (But why does he care--he has plenty of $ anyway). Ad infinitum.... Anyhow, solutions to these problems are appreciated, as well as a better way of tackling them. I think there's something I'm missing...maybe I'm off in floating abstractions, but I'm unsure. Is it simply the out-of-context style questioning that is making this so difficult? Is that where I am suppose to nip the question in the butt and ask, "Wait, how did all this happen? How exactly did the corporation become so successful that it bought out ALL other corporations?...etc."

I'd like to second that, Jennifer. I heard rave reviews of his book by some associates so I thought I'd give it a check. The beginning seemed good and commonsensical, so I thought I'd flip through the book to find something more of interest to me. Finally, towards the end, I came upon a chapter titled "Science and the Mind." I started reading and then began to realize that this book, as the author had claimed, didn't negate faith; but rather, supported it. He starts talking about intuition and how we must take an "intuitive leap" with reason in order for it to work. Pff, how depressing . Maybe if this Standford philosophy graduate had heard of axioms things would be different

I've been thinking about the privatization of land and I keep coming up with difficulties. For instance, if all land is privately owned, and I own none, and no one allows me on their property, what happens to me? (I'm not interested in hearing objections to my question saying that it is impossible for 'everyone' to rejectme from their property) Also, a right to life must consequentially include some right to property, else where would one put one's self if one owned nothing? And if there are any books that discuss changing our system from public to private, I'd love to hear about them.

Software, I haven't. There are some guys who would think that seeing a woman with men around her means that she is likely to be 'one of the guys,' and therefore cool to hang out with. (Some of my male college friends repeatedly complain about women and there emotions, so to them seeing a girl hanging out with guys is a possible plus) I haven't met many Objectivists person to person, so there's a chance my dating idea wouldn't work out well for an Objectivist. However, generally speaking...i.e., if you were to ask 1,000 women selected at random if they found a man more attractive if he had some female friends...I think the answer would be unequivocal 'yes.' Interesting. I've always been more of a quantity person, just kidding. But from your post, it seems like you might have difficulty making friends, not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but I'm curious, how do you go about making a friendship?

I thought I did explain it (briefly). We must have different definitions of the highly abstract (<--this is meant to be a joke, and it would appear so if we weren't communicating through stupid internet ) concept of 'look'. I hope this clears everything up. IF you are a single woman and finding a potential romantic relationship is something that comes to your mind every now and then, and IF you happen to see a man alone on the street who's about to pass by you, don't you look at him and have a quick judgement, based on his appearance (including demeanor, facial expression, etc.) as to whether or not he's a potential partner? Appearance, and, if you happen to briefly greet each other on the street, can give you some idea of what that man is like and if he has dating potential. To add to those two criterions, if a male has two female friends by his side (note: this doesn't mean he's dating them), then you probably know that he has a potential to at least be a friend or carry on a conversation. The potential for friendship and conversation are two more positives you would add to this guy's file. So, assuming women like to converse and enjoy friendship, this would be the causal connection. I want to comment more, but I'm unsure of the context we are talking about here.

Pff, you wouldn't want to be blatanly obvious about your.... dating machinations (i.e., she rejects you and the next day you rent five lady escorts and bring them into her presence). What I was merely suggesting was this simple fact: Scenario: Woman sees man while walking along sidewalk and finds him mildy attractive. Scenario: Same scenario, same woman/man, this time she see's him and he's accompanied by two of his female friends and they are having a gay ol' time. Woman finds him ecstatically attractive. I'm not going into details as to why this is the case, as it's pretty much self-evident, and it even works in the reverse (although not with the same potency). The above appraisal of the man isn't based on emotion; but rather, reason (seeing a man with two women gives us reason to believe that he has potential for relationship and amicability). So to suggest that I was alluding to women being "one big ball of emotion" is groundless and not very derivable from my previous post (although I will admit that most women I meet are properly catergorized there). Dating is like marketing: you can have the greatest product or service in the world, but if you don't expose it and present it as if it's the best, it's not going to have a chance. Same with the date-seeker. So the slogan is: Be a marketer, and BECOME a dater!

I have always "mirrored, reflected, and validated," with strangers. Although people usually are pretty boring and sometimes my mirror turns opaque. It's fun to experiment however, and say, for instance, you leave out 'mirroring' but retain reflection and validation--you should notice some interestig effects this has. If I were to rate one of them as most important, I'd say mirroring is--since body language plays a key role in establishing rapport, much more so than simply reflecting a client's words...body language seems to prep the client for reflection anyway.

I'll suggest what someone else has alluded to: Leave her alone, don't bother her, and *almost* pretend as if she didn't exist. Treat her with the same formality you would when meeting an unfamiliar woman, and see what effects that has on her. (If you really want to make a stand, borderline to conspicuousness, ask her about the weather) Eventually she'll succumb!!!! She'll think "Wow, one day this guy is generous and keenly interested in me, the next he's as if I didn't exist." She'll start to regain interest in you, seeing that 1) you aren't desperate, 2) you act odd (In a curiously provoking way), since most guys she's rejected just keep coming back for more rejection and 3) you treat a shinny diamond like a water-bound pebble. Also, if you really want to get her goose (I'm not sure what I mean by goose, but I'll use it ambiguously in hopes that you can fill in the blank) going, try bringing a friend that's a girl and have her hang out with you while in the presence of the woman you want to hook up with. The once persued woman will automatically think "Oh my God, he left me for her" or "Man, he's wasting time with her instead of me?" etc. Anyhow, dating can be retarded. Those are my 2 cents, and if you were to ask me for my credentials I would tell you that I haven't had a girlfriend in 4 years, so maybe it is wise not to heed my advice . Goodluck with the dating game, and remember, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. Cheers! Nick (PS, I probably won't respond to this post since accessing the internet for me is like finding gold)

I find $20 hard to beleive, unless they are limiting you to an X-amout of days per month (although if it's for real, I'm jealous). 24 hour fitness, one of the largest fitness corporations in the U.S., charges around $30/month+intiation fee of $75+dolloars. Most private gyms won't be able to beat that since they aren't as large and commercial. Then you have the stupid gyms that are built on tax money and STILL charge you for entering (although usually I just walk in, saying I have to pick up my little sister ). And, even though they are built/funded on taxes, they usually charge more than private/corporate gyms. LOL!! A quick side note, not directed at anyone, but there are some people who put money over health, when in reality, being healthy is saving money (last time I checked, a trip to the cardiologist was quite expensive). Nonetheless, I have compassion (for women more so than men) for fat people who have given up on trying to loose weight. It's a bitch to work all day and then come home and try to work out. It's also a bitch to work out when you have just eaten, so everything has to be planned accordingly...which is tough when you are at work and don't necessarily have the liberty to eat when you ought to. And if your standing on your feet all day while you work, which means your feet are sore as *hit (regardless of how much you weigh) the last thing you want to do is run, or lift weights, which requires you to add more pressure to the bottom of your feet. Being in shape I still agree with this, but I can't imagine what it must be like to be fat and try to do this...that's why I try to permanently keep off unnecessary weight, since I know it will be 20times harder if I get fat.

I'm with Al on this one. I'd like to know some more about the RH story. It took place in the middle ages didn't it? If it did, then I bet the rich consisted of money-extortionists. Nevertheless, it is important to make the facts clear, b/c after children read RH, they probably leave with the idea of "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor," and other altruistic insinuating ideas. =P

I second Kevin.

Seems like fuzzy logic may *confuse* epistemology with metaphysics, giving us epistaphysics

And how does this belief effect your actions on earth?

I enjoyed it... I especially enjoyed how you dissected maturity and went through what seemed like logical steps in doing so . If I have time I will try to write more comments on it

The process by which an irrational set of beliefs is held is much different than the irrational set of beliefs itself...so it would make sense to have two different definitions here. For instance, the process by which one comes about an irrational set of beliefs could be faulty logic, whim, or some type of emotionalism--but these are all different than a belief say in God, or gremlins, or human rats. valjean, why can't we ask if faith can lead to happiness? Wouldn't that be a more useful question? If you don't care if faith actually leads to happiness, then let us change faith to something more egregious...like cutting off a finger every day or any other self-mutilating technique. Wouldn't you find it preposterous if someone asked you, "If a man skins a 2x2 section of his body everyday and it makes him happy, is it rational to do so?" Your first response would probably be, "Wait, this man skins himself and that makes him happy!?" I have that same first response, only mine is, "Wait, this man uses faith most of the time and he is happy!?" So, say you have achieved some value, is this feeling you get from achieving a specific value the same feeling you get from the "general feelings of satisfaction" independent of anything you have done? I would think that the feeling you get from seeing a beautiful picture or contemplating a wonderful afterlife would be much different than the feeling you get after setting a goal and achieving it. You may see a painting and think, "Wow, this painting makes me happy." You may accomplish a goal and say, "Wow, accomplishing this goal made me happy." But I would say the above examples differ. In the former you felt a certain emotion based upon something you saw. In the latter you felt a certain emotion knowing that you set a goal and accomplished it--all the while knowing that you must have some control over the reality you inhabit, simply b/c you were able to set a goal and accomplish it. Hopefully I'm not getting side tracked, but I challenge you to introspect heavily into why a painting brings you happiness. When I see children playing, I feel much happiness in that simply b/c it reminds me of my childhood--and then I think of all I have learned, all I have accomplished, and how much my perspective on life has grown since then, and that feeling...as a RESULT of those memories and thoughts (memories and thoughts of goal-oriented action), is a feeling of profound happiness.

valjean, then I shall give you my direct answer: If we assume injecting coke makes a man happier (this premise apparently being unquestionable in the context you have specified), then it is rational for him to do so. To me it seems like the thread should be "can faith lead to happiness?" Obviously if something trully makes one happy, as properly defined, then he ought to pursuit it. Which is why I am doubtful of your motive of asking the question, "If we assume faith makes one happy, should he pursuit it?" That's all I have.

What if someone asks you to define joy?

I thought I did. Just as the coke user winds up truly unhappy, since his taking of coke inhibits his life, so the faith believer winds up unhappy, since his taking of faith inhibits his life. (Both the injection of coke and the use of faith in order to be happy are two sides of the same coin; the coin being an idea not grounded in reality) Argh...my written communication is horrible...hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say, I give up .

Seems like the same logic you use to stay heathly will also work for finding this woman and friends and job you want.

It all goes back to the ol saying: If you can't beat em,' join em. Some people out there think that the quickest way to freedom is to just give in to the demolishing ways our society is headed...(i.e. vote for higher taxes, more regulations, etc.) Sometimes that idea is tempting. Maybe that's what the bum is doing lol =P.

If we assume that injecting coke does make a specific person happier, is it rational for him to do it? I think this is why Felipe asks you to define happiness.