Nxixcxk

TO SET THE STAGE: Dond says this after Liberty says she's learned how to beautify herself despite lack of finances. Felipe agrees with Dond's comment above having seeing her in person, to which Dond replies: Then Pony Girl steps in and quotes Dond saying all these things, telling him that's no way to hit on girls. To which Dond replies: And bam, somehow we are overanalyzing such trifling comments. Dond's little can't be, with certainty, interpreted as a "hit" on Liberty--especially on the internet in conjunction with what he said (if this was "real life," then we'd have facial and body language to go off as well, but we DON'T). If anything, it was merely showing physical attaction to the picture he saw. For all anyone knows (or I should say for those don't know Liberty outside the internet), that's not even her. Now I'm not sure what he meant by "foiled again," other than maybe he didn't believe she was really that beautiful; but nonetheless, I won't try to interpret it further b/c there's nothing to really go off of. As to his "chagrin" and "j/k" comment, he's simply JOKING about the fact that he's too good for any of the ladies on this board, which I find unequivocally funny in the way he stated this. And, in conclusion, I really doubt he does do the online dating thing, which adds to his joking manner knowing that he doesn't take it seriously. I disagree. He's simply saying that girl's may or may not want to date him, what's wrong with that? In no way can we interpret his comment as a way of saying that's he's worthless of any women. (and this was made in relation to ONLINE dating, to which he seems to differentiate b/t that and non-online dating) Why do I find the "chagrin and j/k" part funny? B/c for many women, they know nothing of Dond to even be attracted to him. It would be equivalent to a new member posting for the first time saying, "Much to the ladies' chagrins"etc. How do you define insecurity? Where can anyone prove this? How did Ayn Rand substantiate this statement? Does the essence of femininity pertain only to women? If not, why the differentiation? Is it possible for men to have this quality? Does "the feminine" only pertain to women? Also, what's the masculine? Is the masculine simply one to which a women can look up to? Edited for the top addition: "TO SET THE STAGE"

eeeeeneeeemeeeeneeemiiineeeemooo Seems like if she intrigues you, shows passion for life (i.e. has goals and tries to obtain them), has decent personality+looks, then she's a candidate for asking out. Anyhoo, those are my standards

Moi aussi. I'm currently reading DE BONO'S THINKING COURSE and it seems to be fairly interesting. I've also checked out two of his other books that I will read after reading this one and taking notes.

Has anyone read books by this man? Also, if you have, did you try using his methods of thinking and creativity? Did they work?

Phew, was scared for a second. After I read your title I had to look around a little bit to make sure there weren't cameras.

Why wouldn't it? Stress has an effect on the body's health. And, for instance, if you are sick and you truly believe you won't get better, then most likely you probably won't (or at least the time of your recovery will be greater)--NOT b/c your mind is somehow controlling reality, but simply b/c the stressed caused from knowing you will not get better makes you worse.

Bah, you all are giving dond too hard of a time. I think he's rather funny My theory has always been: If they are blinded, then I don't have a problem .

I think I have it down pat now Tom, although sometimes I have to think about it for 3 seconds or so before I use it .

Hi! And welcome to the forums! Yeah, how'd you guess? There's a theory to life!?!? Should I burn my Rand books too along with my computer? Ok. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to help enlighten me on where I'm going wrong, I really appreciate it--w/o your help, I'd be lost. PS--Do you know if Mr. Zappa had autism or Asperger's?

Ahh, yes. Pg 58 OPAR: "To change the analogy: the choice to focus, Miss Rand used to observe, is like throwing a switch; it may be compared to starting a car's motor by turning on the ignition. (Whether and where one drives are later issues)." This partly answers my question. But in conjuction with this, the answer is complete: Pg 59 OPAR: The choice to focus, I have said, is man's primary choice. "Primary" here means: presupposed by all other choices and itself irreducible." "Untill a man is in focus, his mental machinery is unable to fucntion in the humans sense--to think, judge, or evaluate. The choice to "throw the switch" is thus the root choice, on which all others depend. I see now I was trying to prove something axiomatic.

Ya Dagny that helps, thanks. I'm gonna have to think it over for a while before I come to a conclusion though.

Welcome to the forum and thanks for an introduction that told us a little about yourself. Atlas Shrugged should be quite the treat .

I remember reading in some of AR's books that the first choice is to focus or not. But what I'm wondering is this: If choice presupposes focus (i.e. one must be focused before one can choose), then how could focus be the first choice? In other words, the first choice is between these two choices: 1. Focus 2. To not focus But if one chooses not to focus, then they must be focusing, since to choose presupposes focus. I can visualize a person choosing not to focus and then slowly dieing b/c of that choice, but I'm unable to put this into a written, logical format w/o contradicting myself. Maybe when Rand talked about choosing to not focus, she meant focusing on that which is inimical to one's life? Argh, I'd bet there is some blatant form of concept-stealing or misconstruing that is going on here, but I cannot pin-point it, please help. Thanks, Nick.

LOL! Are you sure you weren't simply stressed out though (maybe from contemplating what to put on, or by knowing the fact you didn't have time to put anything on)? (of course, I do wonder what you mean by "simple things,"--hopefully a shower and brushing of the teeth and hair are catergorized under "simple things," if not, then anyone would easily fall under the category of tired or sick.)

Most serial killers are left handed

hahaha Tom, you're a comedian!

lol. For some reason I find this thread funny as hell--probably b/c I find it to be so unexpected in an Objectivist forum, even if it is miscellaneous section. I'd like to second this opinion. (not that this really helps in relation to your beauty questions Jennifer; in fact, it's quite the contrary--but I think some of us males may be thinking, "I bet she thinks that pale skin and a non-makeup face make for an unattractive women," so take from it what you will =P.)

LOL! That's awesome. (A new Fox T.V. show called: "When Children Fight Back,") So many times I here adults telling children absurd things, such as your example, almost as if the child's mind was a tool for their entertainment--it's so pathetic and, if I may say so, childish. Edited for quote fixing.

Ahh now I understand, thanks for the responses.

Pg 118, VOS, Miss Rand writes: "Just as the growth of controls, taxes and "government obligations" in this country was not accomplished overnight--so the process of liberation cannot be accomplished overnight." I agree with her here; however, I don't understand her logic--or would the above be considered an analogy? By her logic (or analogy?), if I said, "Just as the construction of a building does not happen overnight, so the destruction of a building cannot happen overnight," I'd be applying the same means of obtaining a conclusion as Rand did, but it would clearly be false, since one can simply dynamite a building "overnight," thus destroying it. I've noticed this type of arguing occurs a lot in OPAR and in other books by Rand (if need be, I can find many more examples). So I'm wondering what it is, if there's a name for it, and if it's a sound way of reasoning. Peace, Nick. ..had to edit b/c I somehow accidentally hit the tab button+enter which posted something I didn't want posted.

That would depend on God's attributes and what it is capable of doing.

Who's the new member?

Oh, and if it's allowed, a Q&A at the end would be nice, which would also test your current understanding of O.

Jesus...40mintues!? That's insane--I'm rarely able to hold a dialogue for that amount a time, let alone a monologue =P Nevertheless, for your introduction, I'd suggest explaining to them why they should listen to your speech about philosophy--i.e. why do people need philosophy? (Humans are volitional and have the capability of making incorrect choices--so humans need a set of principles, guidelines if you will, to guide their choices, if they want to live...etc.etc.) Once you have that established, start from the basics and bulid your way up. Also, the more effectively you relate Objectivism to the AP student's life, the more persuasive and interesting your speech will be to your classmates (if that's one of your goals). The content for this speech should come "naturally" so to speak--that is to say, the preparation and motivation is already inside of you, you just have to discover it. Ask yourself why you study Objectivism...what has it done for you...why do you continue to study it? etc. Good luck

The Pope's contradiction was his religious belief.