John Tate

Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Tchaikovsky is also a favorite.

I hear a light background buzz myself. This guy is badass. Wish I could play piano.

And now I just read my own post I can't help but thinking of Chris Rock's "Black People vs Niggers."

I'm homosexual, I rarely say anything about this anymore, and I rarely bother. Thanks to gay pride movements I don't plan on being open about my sexuality for a good fifty years. Maybe longer. Why is this you might wonder? Apart from it being nobodies business, when I have said anything about my sexuality, I get the most annoying responses possible. Often people don't even believe me about my sexual preferences simply because I don't fit the stereotype of a collective gay man. When I meet other gay men, apart from on occasion, they also tend to bind themselves to a tribe that literally has tribal makeup and a uniform, along with a tribal tradition of being promiscuous. Fuck those faggots, I would rather beat off till the end of my days than know a single one of them. In fact, other gay people behaving like a tribe have made being gay completely unbearable. When I think about Ayn Rand's few comments on the subject, I can't blame her for finding homosexuality disgusting. The tribal faggots are disgusting, and worse for me, all that there is to see. Their behavior consists of making their sexual preferences as obvious as possible while holding that their sexual preferences don't matter or define who they are. Despite saying that sexual preferences don't define who they are, they commonly stick a "scene" and dress the same, act the same, aspire to do the same stupid bullshit in terms of jobs. This certainly doesn't apply everyone that is homosexual, just for those that are seen and they are seen because of the manner these faggots behave. The fact is, I don't face any threat of violence from rednecks and bigots simply because I don't behave like a total faggot and talk like a woman. Most people who I do end up telling don't even believe it simply because I am not some neat and tidy wanker obsessed with manicures and other bullshit. Gays are not overly hygenic, faggots are. I'm sick of the stereotype! I bite my nails, and I work from home so I shower every second day just because I can. I don't have loads of female friends. I don't eat well, nor do I work out. Note: my use of the word 'faggot' is warranted. The only people who care about such things are members of the collective homosexual trend that deserve to be offended. The only way a mere word can be offensive is if idiots let it bother them anyway.

Nice strawman, it should be obvious that isn't what I mean.

I would like to add that central banking cannot be run competently. Not that I am a fan of Greenspan, just that central banking is flawed.

There has been a lengthy debate over moral standards here that I have looked at. It seems a bunch of moral relativists don't believe they can exist physically or scientifically. Indeed, morality does exist physically. To say it does not is to say our consciousness is powerless to act on the physical world - and by that implication to say morality has no physical evidence is to negate consciousness. Any action by rational beings must be chosen consciously, and those conscious choices to be moral must simply allow for other beings to be selfish in Ayn Rand's philosophy. That is where others come into the picture of the philosophy. There is no special exemption for John Galt, there is no exception from morality in Objectivism for anyone. If you think Galt has an exemption in Atlas Shrugged because he doesn't behave altruistically, you are not understanding the literature at all and you are assuming morality is altruism. Objectivist morality as a standard is based around the observable fact that we think independently, exist as separate entities, and possess a rational faculty. We exist independently, so we are a self. We exist as separate entities, so we must think for ourselves. We posses a rational faculty (the mind, dummy) so we can look after ourselves. There are billions all with these three qualities. So if a code morality demands I don't think for myself, and demands I look after others it demands I renounce my minds responsibility over my own life as a moral rule. Selfishness in Ayn Rand's philosophy is an Objective principle based around the fact we are individuals, the fact that we have a self. Her moral code demands people live with purpose and sustain their own lives. Her moral code standard is the self. Altruism and any philosophy that demands collectivism and sacrifice as moral, demands we are tied to arbitrary groups (arbitrary because a group exists out of individuals conscious decisions to belong or make those belong - groups are not natural but essentially man-made in that they are consciously decided). The individual however is an objective fact, which exists through nature. Psychological science generally tends to point in the direction of individuals, and one could say Ayn Rand's standard of morality is the only one that has a scientific basis. When selfishness is said to be her philosophy, it indeed is. Where do others come into this? Others must also be able to exist selfishly which demands a code for living: morality. We must respect others rights to be a self, and protect our own right to be a self (ie: self-defense). John Tate

I don't understand this comment at all. Especially regarding stocks, if I buy stocks because I am going to profit from them it helps fund a company or product no matter how little/much I believe in it. Being an avid iPhone fan doesn't magically make someones investment in Apple more productive than someone who dislikes the iPhone. Both know a lot of people do like Apple products and both help the productive process for a profit.