Danneskjold

The problem with people who use "Objectivist putdowns" as putdowns are that they care that they are seen that way.

There are many types of people in this world when you look at status between individuals and how they rate themselves and other people, but when you break them down to their lowest common denominators people generally fall into one of two groups: leaders and followers. We all know the mentality of the follower, the person that finds it easier to blend in, to go with the crowd, or to not show anything special about themself at all in order to gain acceptance. The person who acquires self-esteem as they acquire friends and loses it as they lose friends. But what is the mentality of the leader? Is the leadership that so many people respect for the sole reason that it's there worthy of the respect?

Leaders can be split into two groups, the leaders that play to the strengths of their followers and the leaders that play to the weakness of their followers. Leaders of the former variety are people such as, of course, John Galt. They are hard to come by in this world, and their followers are really usually followers by virtue of being already of like mind. The latter of the types of leaders are types such as Ellsworth Toohey, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and nearly any leader with large amounts of followers to his name. The essence of the relationship between these two types of leaders can be summed up using a line from the film 300 when Xerxes said,

Cruel Leonidas demanded that you stand. I require only that you kneel.

Leonidas and the Spartans in many ways represented the relationship between the leader by strength and mutual respect. He led few, he led the best, and in the end his army, eliminating traitors, was the stronger and better in spite of all his disadvantages. Xerxes is the very caricature of a Stalin, Hitler, and men like Jim Jones. Xerxes, in the movie, ruled by fore, mysticism, collectivism, and fear.

So are the leaders that lead by force, mysticism, fear, and collectivism worth of respect? The people that come to power by convincing all around them of deficiency? Of course not. They have ceased to be leading anything at all. This is what Rand meant in We the Living when Kira said that if you add up a bunch of 0's that it still comes to nothing. Leaders such as those lead by reducing the worth those they lead to nothing, by making every person they lead a mirror of themselves so that, in the end, they are just leading themselves. All that is required is to convince a person that they have no value, and really, your average high schooler can do that.

So is a great leader worthy of respect by nature of being a leader? Of course not. It's not how many they lead and how much fervor they can whip up for their cause, the measure of a leader is who they lead, the quality of that man, and the respect that they can earn from the best of those they lead.

I was sitting in my History of Western Civilization class learning about the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther. Martin Luther split with the Catholic Church was corrupt. This corruption manifested itself in the form of selling of indulgences.

As I sat and listened to my teacher tell us about selling indulgences, how they worked, and how much they cost, I suddenly got reminded of Francisco's money speech and the conversation between Francisco and James Taggart where Francisco says that he wants to buy his way to heaven.

The entire thing made me burst out laughing which made me tell my teacher why, which gave him a chuckle and as he rolled his eyes at me.

Now, given, the Catholic Church was not selling these for the same reason Francisco would have, but it's still pretty funny.

I saw a House episode like this. This guy was simultaneously a retard and a musical genius. He was also sick. They fixed the sickness and found out that half his brain was literally dead or dying and was impeding the other side of his brain. So they took out half of it (unfortunately it was the musical half) and he became a normally functioning human being without the musical genius.

I'm with Dodger on this one. Also, the younger the less they realize that they're not immortal. As for my milkshake, it's there for a limited time so I'm going to go get one with more urgency. If it was there forever I might get more over a longer period time, but I wouldn't be urgent about it. The fact that it's not there long makes me want to not waste time getting to it.

I figured I'd post this in humor as well, it's the anti-carbon credit.

http://www.carbondeductions.com/default.asp

I think you guys will REALLY like this.

http://www.carbondeductions.com/default.asp

It's a site devoted to selling "carbon debits". Basically their goal is to offset all the "carbon credits" saved up by all the far lefty big shots and email those people telling them basically, "We did this because you're a wacko". The trees would have been destroyed anyway, and you get a video and a t-shirt out of it.

Seasonal milkshakes at Burgerville, limited time only, I'm'a go get one. They cost a lot though.

That did have a point.

I don't see how Wicked was at all for moral relativism. It was quite clear to me, in this version of the story at least, that the Wizard and Glenda and the other "good" witch were the evil and that Elphaba (sp) was good. The people that constantly talked of moral relativity and such were all on the evil side of the line. As for animal rights and such, well, the animals in that play were self-aware and basically human in all but the physical sense, so I don't mind that theme.

Happy Birthday!

I saw this last september while it was in Oregon. Luckily for me the Broadway lead lives in the area so she was actually playing in it on tour so I got to see it with the first lead in. Boy, it was great. Michael and Kat, I'm surprised you didn't see it last summer when it was in Chicago.

Chris, it's based on a book. Although I've heard that they deviated quite a bit from the book and the book itself was pretty bad and ridden with politics that ideologically are just bad.

I think we can pretty much all agree on those. My recommendation would to be careful to condemn America for that though. I mean, sure, it's crap, but most of it isn't America's fault. I mean, some people have ripped the Constitution to shreds by over-interpreting it and making fuzzy "implied powers" that don't really match up. They also take advantage of the time barrier with language to make it so that they can make it say what they want it to. Just look how bloated the power over interstate commerce in Article 1 Section 4 has become. The government, using that power over interstate commerce, can control who a business can or cannot sell to. They said that a establishment could not refuse to sell to a person based on race because it affected the interstate commerce even if that was as little as the paper cups they sell coffee in coming from out of state. I'm no racist but I think business should be able to sell to who they want.

I love America, but not necessarily what is being done to it. I also just think that there's enough of America left that it's worth defending to the death.

Anything by Crichton. Especially Sphere. I'll put in another recommendation for Ender's Game as well.

I'll second that for sure.

I have a lot of habits. Some are good, some are bad. It gets to the point where my habits are conditioned into me. A lot of the time this is good, like with my baseball swing. When I swing the bat correctly over and over again at strikes good things happen. The reflex that gets me in a lot of trouble is my instant reaction to anything attacking America.

America is an amazing country, I love it. I also realize it has its faults. It's just that I've gotten so used to America being attacked without legitimate reason that I have gotten used to reacting instantly thinking they are wrong. This gets me in trouble when someone has a legitimate complaint with America. I instantly react to it, only to realize that my position is indefensible. Sure makes me look silly. Anyone else have reactions like this?

This is overall very well put together and correct. I'm not sure I would agree with all of what you named as being an anti-movement, but the ideas are correct.

Anti-movements are strange things. They are productive only if what they are against is wrong, but they are like a fatal parasite in that they constantly have to find new things to be against to stay alive.

I may be nitpicking here, but a quick note on the feminism thing, I think men and women can be equal, just not in the way feminists want.

According to Dodger if I value me alive and someone else values me dead this is not a reason for hatred.

Then ask whether the digression was caused by my assumption or your aversion to them. The assumption wasn't an illogical conclusion based on information available. It's your aversion to being judged and made assumptions about combined with my pointing out that assumptions are a large part of logic that spiraled the conversation out of control.

Seems like an appropriate place for me. If there is an individualist team sport, it's baseball (perhaps basketball too). There are so many one on one matchups. First you have the pitcher v. hitter. Lets say the hitter wins and gets on first. Then he tries to steal, there you have one of my personal favorite matchups, catcher v. runner. The same sequential one v. one individual competitions are part of the greatness of baseball as a sport. Baseball is also a thinking man's game. The catcher calls pitches, which means that before you get the physical competition of pitcher v. hitter you get the mental competition of catcher v. hitter. Every situation and each of multiple scenarios must be taken into account. Guys on first and second, two out, they double steal, where do you throw? The shorter throw is to get the lead runner at third, the smarter throw is to get the runner at second. Why? The runner at first had to get a late jump to wait for the runner on second to go. Also, the runner on first has to take a shorter lead than the runner on second because it is an easier pick to first than to second. Because the ball moves faster than the runner by a great deal (5-6 times) and the dimensions are such that a throw to second is about 1.4 times the length of a throw to third, it is a smarter throw to second because the guy on first's lead is generally a good four to five feet shorter than the guy on second's.

You have to think on the fly, be smart, strong, and tough, to make it in baseball. Football, soccer, basketball, and many other such sports are more reactive than they are thinking (quarterbacks are the exception in football). I've played enough of them (mainly football and basketball) to know.

I, for one, have alwys assumed that hatred is necessary for the same reason love is. When someone's values match your own, you love them. When someone's values oppose your own, you hate them (of course this should be adjusted to number and extent). It just so happens that society doesn't disagree with us on some points. There are non-objectivists who value intelligence and the human mind. There are very few people out there who hold values opposed to mine enough to truly hate them.

However, when you love someone's values, you don't just love their ideas and the actions that sprout from them, you love them. When you hate someone's values you don't just hate their ideas or their actions, you hate them. Who people are is defined by those parts of them.

Even as I write this I am contemplating how this would be applied. Is hating someone giving them more control than they are worthy of? Is the inverse of love either hate or indifference depending on your frame of reference? If the inverse is hate then what actions are necessary? I would think that it would be to fight against them using the mind, not physically, unless you were in iminent danger. I'll think more on this one.

Your car will start using more gas to run the AC though.

I assumed that Dodger meant, not all, but quite a few movie versions of Shakespearean plays turned movie. However, he never said all, he never said some.

Congratulations. I didn't say my way was the only way to see it. Just explained my thought process. It wasn't an illogical assumption given the information, nor was yours.

More rational children would be nice. Is there a way to speed 'em up to high school and get 'em to my classes? I'm getting frustrated over here.

On a more serious note, I don't see any responsibility to have a kid any more than I see a responsibility to have three instead of two, four instead of three, or five instead of four and so on down that line. Is it in your best interest? Only if you can supply for the kid.

For those of you going to have kids, this is what my dad bought his friend's son for the kid's first birthday:

http://www.amazon.com/Island-Called-Libert...t/dp/0976616009

Freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and war is peace.

These statements are all contradictions that become true when you change the frame of reference.

Dodger, I was referring to how you say that people stick with the Shakespearian script. Seeing as that movie contradicts that point, I think it was a fair assumption, based on your statement, that you had not seen the movie. A large part of of deductive logic is assumptions based on fact.