Free Capitalist

And yet pride can also be itself a value as well. Take, for example, someone who, when reading The Fountainhead and seeing Roark's pride in his creations, might say to himself, "I want to be like that too." We can act to gain or keep (i.e. value) a certain persistent state of mind (i.e. a virtue) which then helps us act to gain or keep another value (happiness). So pride and all of the virtues can themselves be values as well; they are virtues in respect to some other value, namely happiness. That's why the hierarchy of values is so important.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

You're missing the larger picture. We have to deal with negatives at this point, and I'm perplexed that you're still demanding an Objectivist president. Not going to happen. Fine, one or two people may be arrested under McCain's environmentalist strictures. But a whole American soul will not be extinguished by socialization of medicine. He seems to genuinely endorse tax-cuts, and definitely endorses uncompromising measures in the Middle East. That's not so bad, as far as negative candidates go.

If McCain lets get away this sheer litany of vulnerabilities, then he's had it coming to him. I recently had a thought experiment of 'what's worse' in my head. On the one hand is McCain, whose only major flaw in this election seems to be his respect for environmental issues. On the other hand we (most likely) have Obama, who acts like a clean all-American guy, but has a host of skeletons in his closet, most important of which is socialized medicine. I think socialization of medicine will be in all ways such a huge blow to this country, to its doctors whose ground is currently worshipped by the whole entire world, that free medicine will have to move to a new country, and it will be totally tragic. I am dating a medical resident, and am up close and personal with the magnificent, larger-than-life, Medical Science of the West, centered in its last abode, America. In that perspective, McCain's environmentalism is really not a big deal. He may financially penalize a random company here and there, but that's not a big deal, they can be given tax-breaks after he leaves office. So he'll impose a few restrictions, they can be overturned. Nothing of his view can't be simply undone after he leaves office. What I'm looking for is that here aren't any permanently fundamental fetters on the essence of America and American future well-being. A socialization of medicine, once it happens, can't be undone. Once it happens, it'll be a giant nail heading for the coffin.

Ray, Semper Fi indeed. Nobody could mess with that guy in the first picture.

I'm sorry to say, that Evan Rachel Wood is dating Marilyn Manson. The sweet girl she played in Across the Universe seems to be completely out of character; but her semi-Gothic paleness and black dresses might've been a giveaway. She stars in a music video with Manson where they hook up during a shower of blood.

Webb's bill says that GIs will receive full funding and financial assistance, after 3 years of service, while McCain is in favor of a gradual increase in benefits in proportion to the years of service. It's been a pretty striking misrepresentation on MSNBC and CNN that Webb has been in favor of helping GIs, and McCain's attitude was against this. The reason for McCain's stance, so far as I can gather it, is that he fears Webb's bill will encourage short-term enlistment and en masse discharge as soon as the minimum enrollment is up. By the same token, only those unserious about serving in the military will sign up, hope to get the substantial GI Bill benefits, and run off as soon as possible. We want motivated men, not mercenaries, in our military. McCain's proposal is that we make financial benefits proportional, and thus an enticement only to people who are serious about serving in the military.

That, I think, we've become too cynical to build monuments of principle or untainted and sentimental value. The next sentence has it exactly right: When the monument opened, "there were already glimmers of this, the habitual pooh-poohing of the modern debunker." Habitual, modern debunker, that's exactly right.

I regret just one thing -- that I have just one day per year to give birthday wishes to a friend! Happy birthday! Salve, Amicus.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle3890080.ece

I'm afraid of what will happen in the UK.

Link to MSNBC news reel: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24430144#24430144 Students in Texas high schools are building rockets. This year the rockets are expected to reach 100,000 feet, and the Airforce will have to help launch them.

That's what I have a problem. That whole mentality is very, very wrong. If Roark was black, but still acted in the way that I understood and admired, I would admire him, and I wouldn't need a character to look like me! What is wrong with these people, with the readership which emotionally demands it and the publishers who assent that the demand is proper?

This thread is great.

But, you have to be a lot closer to the action. Isn't that right? Have to put your neck in the noose, on the chopping block if you will. Which is where the men have always had it since the beginning of time. And there's no use bewailing it, just have to get that shotgun and run charging into the thick of it. Hiding and carefully scouting with that sniper gun from a mile away will leave a man cold and lonely in his hideout.

This to me is the most important part of what you said. Howcome you equate a short time with zero time? Even if it's for a short time, you're experiencing happiness which is lacking for you right, and that's nothing to scoff at. Even if just for a short time, you're acquiring most invaluable experience of what women are like, what they want (will men ever figure out?), what they're interested in, what they can be realistically expected to be interested in, etc. As of now it seems you're scared off by a hypothetical, a hypothetical you haven't even a personal experience of to help you in matters of evidence on the subject.

Since I'm not very familiar with recent Indian history, could you give an overview of what the Brahmins have recently been doing to 'take over' India, as well as what Brahmins are in the first place? From what I understand they're the top caste in India, right? You say they've been controlling India for so long, but isn't it true that for the last 700 years, since the Muslim Mughals took over, the situation was different? In short, please provide a context for your concerns, which may not be as evident for others.

Good cop, bad cop?

(Don't read the lyrics. The song will affect you that much more when you don't know what words are next to come.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnaC6cgUmXc You can't tell me this doesn't affect you, bborg. "Maybe I'm just born that way" be damned. You can do it.

Excellent idea TL. In a nutshell, this advice boils down to "give yourself a ton of exposure to various women in many kinds of situations". And that boils down to "continually challenge yourself and don't settle for a comfort zone". That is ultimately the only advice one could ever get. Constantly mentally put yourself into challenging situations with attractive women. And for good effort to be put in into being physically attractive. I don't see how these two cannot produce results in time. By constantly making myself stumble in front of women, is exactly how I overcame late-bloomer problems, how I learned to be comfortable and say the right things. That seems to be how Thoyd has gotten comfortable. I'm sure Ray might say something similar. There's no way except the hard way. I think you (bborg) are doing yourself a disservice by looking at your friends' easy hook-ups and thinking that's how it's supposed to be. It's not. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

See the thing is, you're not supposed to make a move based on those signals. Do you like her? If yes, great job on asking her out. She says no? Too bad, she can go find someone else. It's really not a big deal. At the end of the day, all you have to concern yourself with is, since you're in college, that you look fit and healthy, that you exude a collected and non-unstable impression, that you act like you've got your principles, which she'll have to come around to (rather than you doing whatever it takes to get her). In general, you have to act to pull her to your side of the court, and by bringing attention to her and her attractive qualities, to indicate that she's pretty enough and a good girl enough to be something you'll pursue.

People's behavior is a metaphysical fact in the following sense. We are predisposed to act in a way in which other animals act without choosing. We're also physically built in accordance with that predisposition, women in one way and men in the other. Saying that we all have free will does not erase this fact of sexual roles. We have, and exercise, free will within the framework of the animal on which our rational nature is built on top of. We are also built, and designed, to walk on two feet and to utter discreete and intelligible sounds, but we have free will to walk on two hands, and talk in gibberish. That doesn't erase the fact that we were predisposed to do something else, and that this walking on hands was not it, that uttering meaningless sounds was not it. I mean well, but trying to agonize over whether walking on our feet is appropriate, or fair, especially to people with foot disabilities, is entirely beside the point. Those people with foot disabilities were born incorrectly. Tough luck to them. People with shyness were not born in any incorrect way at all, they have no inescapable debilitating prohibition. They can fulfill that part of their nature with complete aplomb, simply by working on it. Watching National Geographic is a good inductive source of how nature works. Agonizing over why it works, and the fairness of that, isn't open to discussion. What's more, I will add this. Agonizing over the fairness puts you at a deep disadvantage with a guy who doesn't agonize over it at all, who loves his nature, who (with complete triteness) listens to both of his heads, and who acts without a shred of guilt or doubt.

Oh yikes

There are two points about this. First off, one's perspective on the whole "male pursuit" issue is strongly determined by one's shyness or lack thereof. I have absolutely no problems with women being passive and sending signals to me. I am emphatically on Ray's side, and don't mind at all if women are secretive about their intentions. If I want it, I'll go for it. End of story, and she doesn't even have a lot of choice in the matter. Also I have learned to read those signs better. I can look at what a woman is doing and see for myself whether I'm working or not, without her even saying anything on the matter. But if you look back into my late-teen years, I was a completely opposite person in this respect. Not only was I shy and incapable of approaching women, but if someone were to approach me and enlist me into the ranks of 'male pursuit' protestors, I would sign up wholeheartedly, thinking the whole thing unfair and one-sided. And yes, I was extremely a late bloomer, as Thoyd was, and there's nothing pathological about it, nothing preventing the person from growing into who they were supposed to be from the start. So that's point 1. If you've experienced failure in getting women, it's only natural that you'll feel this expectation of you is unfair. If you've experienced success and efficacy, you'll feel nothing bad about it at all, and will yearn to rise to the challenge, to get the most attractive woman you want. Point 2 is: the discussion of whether this male pursuit is "necessary" or "logical" is absolutely beside the issue! It's completely irrelevant! This is not some theoretical construct, open to discussion; it is empirical fact. I wouldn't say to get over shyness; I do think people need to overcome it, but it is more difficult than simply deciding to get over it. What people should get over is this debate over its logical necessity. That is taking an empirical, biological fact, and trying to intellectualize it out of existence. Just take a remote control and flip onto National Geographic Channel, and watch lions in courting, with the female lionness, proud and strong as she may be, simply lying down on the ground and waiting for the lion to come over to her and do his thing. Trying to intellectualize over this does justify a recommendation to 'get over it' (meaning well all the while). Instead of trying to reason why, and whether it's fair, a better object of thinking is how to turn oneself into that lion, and how to get that lionness.