Danneskjold

John is pretty regular isn't it? In any case, welcome to the forum. Glad to have you here.

Quotes, everybody loves to read 'em. What are your favorites? A few of mine that I apply to my every day life are: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." Ayn Rand "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." Ayn Rand "In theory, theory is practice. In practice it isn't." Yogi Berra "Be careful if you don't know where you're going because you might not get there" Yogi Berra "You can observe a lot by just watching." Yogi Berra "All pitchers are liars or crybabies." Yogi Berra

Ok, so does anybody think that there might be unintended repurcussions caused by this law? Less foster parents perhaps? We already need to give people incentives to take care of kids, now we're just taking them away. What's healthier, getting exposed to second hand smoke or not having anything that remotely resembles a normal childhood. Even if you allow the government to regulate the foster parents in-home, that doesn't mean this is a good idea.

I fully realize that your position was never that it was a stand alone argument. Kat was the person that presented it as such and is who I was addressing. You decided just decided to join in. I disagree that it is a valid argument, which I showed by forcing you to switch to a different side. I still do not intend to say there are no valid arguments, just saying that isn't one of them.

I am reading "Of Mice and Men" in English class. Now, you may have noticed that I put it in quotation marks. This is because the book is so bad, short, and generally of poor quality that I consider it a short story more than I do a novel and will refer to it as such. You see, my major quarrel with Steinbeck is that he doesn't have a plot line. The plot that is there doesn't take twists, turns, or have any general change in it at all. Steinbeck has cultivated the habit of, instead of writing about the plot itself, going off on a long detour going as far off topic about the plot as he possibly can within one hundred and six pages. This is why I call what Steinbeck writes a "plot arch". It is the least efficient way to get from point A to point B without making the plot line look like a six year old drew it, spirialing off into all different directions. At least if his plot line did zig-zag around in different areas at random times it would be off of a constant pre-determined path. Now, pre-determination is another qualm I have with Steinbeck's writing. Steinbeck uses literary devices, mainly foreshadowing, with such frequency that not only does it clog the very arteries of the story, and therefore stopping blood flow, but in "Of Mice and Men" and "The Pearl" you cold actually predict the ending of the story before you were halfway through the already short book. In "Of Mice and Men" foreshadowing told me how Lennie would be killed, why he would be killed, and who would do it. I will explain which events show this if explanation is asked of me, but I have already spoiled much of the plot, or what there is of one, as it is. Steinbeck has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Although this is not generally the worst of qualities in a writer, Ayn Rand is guilty of that crime as well, the particular way Steinbeck uses his lack of subtlety is to give away the ending, not put across a message like Rand. When you combine the lack of plot, with the constipation of the story with foreshadowing and literary devices, the dead giveaway of his plot, and Steinbeck's complete lack of overall skill with words, you get the pieces of pure, unadulterated garbage that are perfectly exemplified by works such as "Of Mice and Men" and "The Pearl". Pulitzer author? Not in my book.

I am at work rigtht now so this is going to be quick and not overly intellectual, but: I am pro rights and freedoms for almost everything. But I think that those rights do not extend to the right to pollute (water and air). Since these things are transcient, unlike land, I do not think that you have the right to pollute them anytime and anywhere that you feel like it since you do not own them and they are used and affect other people. Second hand smoke is poison, the purpose of our government is to protect our rights, I think this law will protect the rights of foster children not to have to breath poisoned air. I am also for similar restrictions of smoking in public places and restrictions of business and factories to pollute water. I am not sure how an objectivist could support polluting. Where is my right to clean air? Would you be for people also polluting our water sysytem, or what about spraying tear gas around, or what about mustard gas? Just because tabacco smoke does not kill quickly doesn't mean that it isn't similar. Dustan Right to clean air? You know how much cigarette smoke it would take to have a large scale affect on people outdoors? As far as the indoors is concerned, buy an air filter. Anyone who can afford foster kids can surely take the little extra money to buy that. Or, if the government's handing out kids, have 'em hand out filters too. The things really aren't that expensive. Either way, this is blatantly government entering into people's homes and I think that the right to privacy and all the other rights that this is stepping on far outweigh the supposed right to clean air.

Yes, that is true that there were many shortages. But the fact that there were shortages means almost nothing in regards to whether or not it pulled America out of the depression. More people had jobs, more people had money. The standard of living was not so high, but people still had jobs, many of which stayed due to the enlargement of industries and creations/improvements of new ones post-WWII. The depression may have continued standard of living wise, but that doesn't mean that the war did nothing to pull us out of the depression. I will read that book, however right now I'm swamped with school reading. Winter Break is coming up so I'll set a day aside to read it then.

Ok, Fran. Now you have moved into a completely different point. Which is just proving my point that when standing alone, the fact that birth control is never 100% does not give sufficient reason to legalize abortion. Now, the questions are: Is the baby a part of the body? When does the baby become alive? If the baby is alive and is not part of the body what's more important, sanctity of life, or individual choice?

On the contrary the wartime economy is always one of the best because in America during World War Two there were a great many people employed for the sole purpose of making things for the war. Also, entire new industries are created by the war. Production of supplies increases, as does employment as a result. During World War Two women went to work while the men went out to war. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII Here's an article on Reagan's efforts against the Soviet Union and how they helped bring it down. http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm The idea is that Reagan's spending forced the Soviet's to increase theirs. As well as this, Reagan's funding of the Islamic holy war group which forced the Soviet Union to fight against them.

Good points all. One of the reasons TR ranks so highly on my list is that he paved the way for Woodrow Wilson when he started the Bull Moose Party. Wilson's fourteen points laid the foundation for what is now the disaster we call the United Nations. Also, we could have used a stronger leader than Wilson after WWI who was unable to get his policies implemented when they met with the big four. This, mind you, was in spite of the rest of the big four being heavily weakened and relying largely on the American military for protection. Wilson just plain didn't have the balls. On the flip side, Reagan has been attributed to playing a very large role in the Soviet Union's fall. Some historians have ventured to estimate that if Reagan had not taken that stand, the U.S.S.R. could have lasted up to fifty years. Another large part that he played in the destruction of the U.S.S.R. was his refusal to give up the Star Wars program. The U.S.S.R. was adamant on the discontinuation of Star Wars, Reagan didn't back down. As far as dealing with terrorists and evil regimes...well, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ayn Rand, even if she didn't support WWII, said this about the alliance with Russia: This is because Russia was the enemy of our enemy. So, I would say that the supplying of some of the allies that we are less proud to have was justifiable in order to fight proxy wars against the U.S.S.R. It's a poor cycle to be in, but perhaps a necessary one.(quote from http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html) The latter part of your statement may very well be true, and I will be the first to admit that I am uninformed on the aftermath. However, the former is a misconception. The part I emboldened is the particular part that I have a particular quarrel with. Why were the state's seceding? Well, they felt like their state's rights were in danger of being infringed upon by the federal government. What state rights in general? Well, the major one that was at the very least at the forefront of the political climate of the time was, of course, slavery. So if you look deeper than face value, yes, the Civil War was about slavery. Here is the link to my other forum which is designated specifically to history (my name is Atlas) on which there was an entire thread devoted to the subject of what caused the American Civil War.

Objectivist minitruth (minitrue?). Man, thats a good one.

So here's the question: Who in the history of America has been the greatest President? Why is this? What were their upsides, what were their down? Also, who was our worst President? What resulted from their actions that was outside of their intentions? What resulted from their actions that was bad, but within their intentions? As far as the greatest president goes, economically I am going with Reagan. He is the one that is closest to my life so this shouldn't be a huge suprise to anyone. Reagan saved a economy that was on a rapid descent due to high inflation along with unemployment. Also, the downfall of the U.S.S.R. can be attributed to him due to the fact that he more or less spent them into the ground. He was able to do this, in part, because of the economy that he was able to push towards greatness while the Soviet Union's had no way to keep up. As far as social reforms goes, I would have to say Abraham Lincoln for very obvious reasons. He helped free the slaves, although when put under speculation that is said to be for the purpose of keeping allies away from the Confederacy by making it a war about slavery. Also, he only freed southern slaves. However, seeing as the main cause of the civil war was slavery (when the South refers to state's rights, I believe they are referring to the right to choose whether or not to hold slaves, seeing as there was no other disagreement so major) I will stand by Lincoln. The worst? Either of the Roosevelts. Teddy Roosevelt was very, anti-big business. He fought against a massive corporations. He went so far as to claim that breaking up a near monopoly over the rail industry, one that would have greatly benefitted anybody who desired transportation, was a defining moment in his presidency. FDR, on the other hand, instituted the New Deal. The New Deal was basically the expansion of government to institute socialist programs that didn't do much in the short term, and created more problems in the long term. Let's face it, FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression, World War Two did. FDR took advantage of the desolation that struck America during the Great Depression, and used it to institute his programs causing a massive rise in government involvement in just about everything.

Try dating a girl when neither person can drive, you live forty minutes away so that there's always that possibility dangling in front of you, and being too busy or having parents that won't drive you anywhere. That really sucks. I saw my x-girlfriend once a week at most, once every month and a half at least.

Happy Birthday, Kat!!!! :cheer: Lol. There's an interesting smiley.

It is your decision, knowing full well that it is not a 100% protection, to have sex. Congratulations, you have made decided to take a calculated risk. Abstinence is rational if you believe that the good caused by having sex is outweighed by the bad of if you had a child at this point in time when added to the risk of having a child. As far as the I will refer you to a passage from Atlas Shrugged... on second thought, I cannot find the exact passage because I do not have my book with me at school, however, the gist of it is that someone is demanding Reardon Metal because he "needs" it to build his house but it is too expensive. He demands its cost to be lowered because of his "need" (note Objectivist punctuation ) and his inability to pay the price. Several other things are suggested as materials from which to build the house. He says no to them all because he "needs" Reardon Metal and the others are not as good. It is pointed out to him that he doesn't "need" Reardon Metal, he wants it. If anyone could find the exact passage for me it would be greatly appreciated.In the same way that this man "needed" Reardon Metal, you "need" sex. It is not a requirement for your survival. If the cost of sex (the inability or lack of motivation to care for a baby) combined with the risk of having to pay that price (having a baby) outweighs your "need" then perhaps it is not a wonderful idea. However, if you decide to anyway, it is your responsibility. You should not have the ability to end a possible life (assuming it's not yet alive because we have yet to set standards for when it should be considered as such) for the sole reason of shrugging off responsibility. That is why I disagree with that particular argument although others are still in play.

No, not a person I am considering dating. Just a friend. The funny thing is that her love life very closely parallels this little extra-curricular activity of hers. She's dating a friend of mine, lives forty minutes away, can't talk to him, he's a compulsive liar, and she STILL trusts him in spite of constant warnings from me and another mutual friend(they've hung out three times in the last five months or so and haven't talked in three aside from text messages on my phone or me relaying messages). I showed her the pure stupidity in what she's doing, and she says shes's going to change. I hope she's telling the truth.

Just in case you didn't notice the note of sarcasm in my first post: I think the deal was more about WHY it was a bad idea. She knew it was dumb in the first place but never bothered to assess the risks. Part of the idea behind being an adrenaline junkie is that you KNOW it's dumb and that's why you do it. It's the rush, not that you gain anything from it. This is not to say it's a smart idea, just to say that although she knew she probably didn't care that much.

First off, I'd like to state that when I say adrenaline junkies I do not mean those who do skydiving, bungie jumping, or any other type of generally accepted sport that has normal safeguards put in place. It recently came to my attention that my friend likes to play a game called Chicken with trains. The idea is to see how long a person can stand on a train track with a train coming at them before the guy too scared and jump out of the way. Now, it occured to me that this was an incredibly bad idea. Apparently this brainwave hadn't reached her or many of her friends (She told me no other friend had ever suggested that it was a bad idea). So I was wondering, is this kind of search for an adrenaline rush just a unhealthy byproduct of lacking in purpose, and therefore another way to vent energy and seek fulfillment? Or am I way off base completely?

7|-|15 15 4 7|-|R34D 4B0U7 j00R Ph4\/0R173 \/1D30 94/\/\35. \/\/3 |-|4\/3 0|\|3 Ph0R /\/\0\/135 4|\|D 1 Ph19UR3 $0/\/\3 0Ph j00Z /\/\U57 pL4'/ \/1D30 94/\/\35 @ 0|\|3 71/\/\3 0R 4|\|07|-|3R. 0R /\/\4'/B3 7|-|47'5 jU57 /\/\3. 317|-|3R \/\/4'/, 1Ph j00Z |-|4\/3 '3/\/\, p057 j00R Ph4\/0R1735 |-|3R3. That's 1337 $[]D34k (leet speak) for: This is a thread about your favorite video games. We have one for movies and I figure some of you must play video games at one time or another. Or maybe that's just me. Either way, if you have 'em, post your favorites here. Note: leet speak is a video game communication thing done by people who have no life. I was able to write that in leet speak because I used a leet speak translator, which was set up by someone with absolutely no life. Anyways, my favorite game is a game called Gears of War. The idea is you kill the alien type things that are coming out of the ground. Use the gun with the chainsaw on the bottom to saw them in half. It's fun. Also, you can make guys' skulls pop off if you headshot 'em with the sniper.

Honestly, if I can ever find an award that doesn't have an underlying political message to whatever it is giving an award for then I might take the time to watch. That's if I want to fall asleep. These things are so dull, last interesting thing that happened during a live musical performance was Timberlake ripping Janet Jackson's shirt off. (joke) And honestly, even that wasn't real suprising.

Fixed the problem.

It's Jeff. You were right. I'm thinking about asking MSK to change my display. I hadn't read the place where it asked to have your name be your display name when I first joined.

I couldn't believe this when I heard it announced on the news about five minutes ago. There is an attempt at passing a law in Texas that would make it illegal for foster parents to smoke when they are around their foster children. This includes homes, cars, and any of their own private property. Now, aside from this being a HUGE move towards a nanny state, does anybody down there think that this might decrease incentives to take care of children? This is just stupid.

I probably can't give 'em to you exactly, but probably pretty close. If it's the one I have on my sig it's Annie-"Well, no one ever really chooses anyone. I mean it's all a question of metaphysics, timing, and molecular attraction" Crash-"I don't believe in molecular physics when it comes to the heart" Annie-"Well then what do you believe in" Then comes the quote from my sig. After:Annie-"Oh my" Crash exits laughing.

Remember, this is not a reason I think abortion should be illegal, this is a reason I think that the birth control argument isn't a good one. The reason I dismiss this argument outright is because everybody knows that nothing (or very close to it) is 100%. So it becomes a question of personal responsibility. I am walking down the stairs, something I know contains the risk of me slipping and falling down the stairs, I slip, fall, and break my leg tumbling down the stairs. It is my fault that I broke my leg, no one else's, and I will spend x amount of time in a cast. Now, as reluctant as I am to call a baby a punishment, that is what those who get an abortion obviously see it as, or at the least something bad (generally speaking). So, assuming one knows that contraception is not 100%, then those who use contraception are taking a calculated risk. If their calculated risk doesn't pay off, then if you have abortion legal for the sole purpose of that argument then you have just given someone a way to shrug off responsibility for an action at the cost of another person-to-be's life. As I have said before, there are many good reasons abortion should be legal, one of them is that it would probably turn into a bigger disaster than the American war on drugs. However, giving a person to pass the buck onto a person-to-be is not a reason to keep abortion that I can bring myself to support.