equality72521

I am very torn on the subject of suicide. I recognize that everyone has the right to end their own life, however I do not recognize the right of the mad or temporarily mad to suicide. I wont go into details but I had it very hard as a teenager. When I was fifteen I was driven to the point of total despair and I really lost my grip for a while, its not a joke when I say that I was clinical. I had people telling me the world was one way, and I was trying to live in the world as they told me it existed, but it didnt meld with the facts. Finally I sat down one day and decided that I was going to discover the truth about truth and reality. If there was no reality, no truth, I was going to kill myself, if there was than I would commit my life to reality and the truth. That examination saved my life, it was done rationally. If however I had just tried to end it than i would not have had a right to.

My head hurts... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Think, think really hard for just a second. You are using the 1960's definition of free... I hate the 60's. There is no way in which it is possible that "Freedom of speech" could be envisioned as having been meant to protect liable or slander considering that they are a violation of an individuals rights. As for the Alien and Sedition act it was unconstitutional. as for sex with underage minors, again a violation of rights. making drugs illegal... unconstitutional. banning human sacrifice... I have questions of the constitutionality of banning it. it is wrong to say that we do not respect the first amendment, the question is, is it being carried out consistently.

Wow I mean I have seen stretching before but this is Mr. Fantastic level right here. I give Steve Jobs high marks, however this does not mean that I support dropping acid. I hate "gotcha" logic. Just because he was brilliant and right in one thing does not mean he was brilliant and right in all things.

Is Cain the perfect Candidate? No not by a long shot. Is he the best option on the table at the moment? absolutely. Its not a question of taking poison, we have already swallowed the poison, and it gave us cancer. What I am hoping for out of Cain is not a cure, instead I am hoping that he will stabilize the patient until we can get enough great doctors to cure the patient. Even if the most pure objectivist won the presidency it would make very little real difference. People always put so much focus on the president but they forget that he actually has little real power. And reducing the expanded power of the president at this exact moment in time would be a very very very bad idea, so dont suggest that would help a lot.

My 2 bits I am currently working to become very wealthy and estimate that it will take me another 6 to 7 years to raise the kind of capital I need. The PROPER correlation between profit and product is if you build a product which others see as worth having then your work will be rewarded by profit. According to the socialist model I am planing on raising the capital only to waste it. When I have enough capital I plan on ending government education by producing semi "free" education. Once I have enough starting capital I want to put 3/4 of my capital into investments and the other 1/4 into building a school to suit 3,000 students hire 400 "educators", and provide the education for the students at low to no cost. This will then begin a cycle as the investments grow (slowly at first) I will begin to expand the school into a second school, then a third, and so on. In the end financially I will have gained little if nothing, however I will have raised a huge profit. The profit I seek is not to forcefully close government education but rather to put it out of business, and further to spread my own personal philosophy which will better not just the lives of the students but my own life as well. This may never get off the ground or it may take my life time and more to complete. If in the end I produce a product which is high quality and it goes on to influence the world as I hope than the profit of living in a freer world will be my reward. seeking money for the sake of money is evil, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding what money is. 'money is a means to an end which cannot replace the cause.' Though Steve Jobs was a scattered man I believe that at his core he understood what it was all about, having just finished the new bio on him I believe this more now. He wanted to create products that would change the world, that would add to first and foremost his own life. Just look at what he did at apple, he simplified everything, and was obsessed with being the best. Though there are more homes with a PC (mine being one) is there any doubt that Steve Jobs made Mac's superior. Does Mac's fit the hacker ethos? no, but they were not meant to. But ask yourself, out of all the products out there that have been copied by Apple's competitors which products last longer. I had my first Ipod for 3 or 4 years and it was my fault it finally broke. My second Ipod I gifted to my mother and it lasted me 2 years and she still has it. Profit is a subjective term. To Steve Jobs it meant putting out not just a product but the best product of its kind. The reward for doing this was making money which was a bi-product not profit.

That's true by the numbers is bad, however this is not exactly by the numbers. It's a realistic assessment of the facts. Love, true love is rational, given our shared values my friend and I are "in the market" for the same woman. Why should a woman I love also not love my best, closest, and most dear friend. Further why should we not desire the same woman. Our tastes in looks are a bit different sure, however looks are. Of the most important to us. By the numbers it just makes sense.

Monogamy can work for some at least for a while. However I am expecting to live to be very very old. One of the reasons why I personally have decided to do this is because it is hard to find a good woman. Althoght I have recently decided to become bisexual my tendency is certainly towards men. However I want children and I also want to raise them in a home with a mother. I am opposed entirely to the concept of open relationships. My best friend however is straight however we both enjoy each other intimately. Given our closeness this seems to be the best for both of us. I believe it will provide a better more stable home for any children we decide to have, it will allow the three of us to more easily pursue our own interest as well as provide financial security. I believe the ideal size for this type of relationship is either 3 or 5, right now we want to keep it to three. I also believe that men should out number women in the relationship for very practical reasons. We are planning on a civil union not a state marriage, and we agree that it is not a life commitment. We want it to last for at least 15 years, which hike that is a long time by many standards it is short by the length of life I plan to live. I have already done a lot of research and looked at the best way to arrange a relationship of this kind. If you want the geometry ask.

Alright I am back and ready to make lots and lots of trouble . Lets start with the update. So my best-friend D and I have decided to become polyamorous. Given the nature of our friendship and closeness this is a logical step for us to take. How did we come to this decision? Well that is a bit more complex. It basically started with a question from him to me, the question was "Is monogamy the only legitimate form of relationship.". Well we knew Ayn Rand's answer but I have never been one to take something on faith so we discussed it. Then I thought about it, then he thought about it, then we discussed it, then I thought about it some more... and well i'm sure you can figure out way that goes. Now some might say that I have a bad track record as far as relationships go, and if you consider 1 girlfriend in 9th grade that lasted 2 weeks a bad track record then your right. My "Relationships" if you could call them that were always very open with the exception of that 1 girl. They didn't really begin or end and they could never be considered exclusive, I never had official girlfriends or boyfriends just people I went on dates with and or had sex with. Some might think that this would mean that naturally I would jump at the chance to title myself poly-whatever. Well the truth is I am a romantic at heart. Although I never claimed exclusivity (and would have been enraged at the idea of someone claiming me) I had never really thought about the question of monogamy too much, that is to say I knew one day I might want to settle down with one person but that was later if ever. I did not nor do I have an aversion to polygamy or bigamy but I thought if I ever settled down than the relationship would be monogamous. His question however got me thinking and questioning assumptions I had always made. I began to read more and more on the subject and researching the different types of relationships and the family structures that follow. Well after several months we started talking about it again and looked at the positive and negative of everything. We finally came to the conclusion that for Him and I the best form was polyandry, and that is how we came to looking for a girl friend. So for my own personal interest, what kind of relationship are you guys in (or looking for) and why do you choose one over the other.

Preach it brother preach it. Amen, praise Prometheus, Hallelujah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHrxPSDgyyI&feature=related I have met God, though I doubt he means the same as I.

Sorry there are some who believe that the entire universe is decaying and that even the Atom's and Quarks are decaying. From your post I thought you were one of these. The point which is important (and which I am not sure if you ignored or just didnt get) is that augmenting the body with healthy cells can and will reverse aging.

I despise those who are Pastafarian. While I myself do not believe in any religion the very concept of Pastafarianism is repugnant to me. If someone wants to delude themselves into believing in divine beings fine, these people however...

Nonsense. The number of atoms in my body is finite at any given instant of time. The set of atoms in our bodies changes from one second to the next. Some atoms leave (have you taken a shit lately?). Some atoms enter (how was your last meal?). Ba'al Chatzaf And some of these atoms are degenerating, they can be augmented or even replaced by healthier atoms.

Disinformation is not immoral. Selene and I usually see eye to eye on most things however in this case we diverge. This is war people, we are in a philosophical war to the death. To answer the question it would depend on a number of things, not the least of which is, why, and what.

This is John Galt speaking...

I grasp it quite well. I studied the theory of transfinite numbers. And in what way does it relate (in your mind) to your own finiteness? That's the philosophical part I'm interested in. The set of atoms of my body constitute a finite set of objects. Next question? Ba'al Chatzaf Ask and ya shall receive. Inquiry is the mother of truth. And all the atoms in the universe - do they also constitue a finite set of objects? The question is is the universe infinite? You can't know because it is beyond possible experience. You can address the matter philosophically, but all you'll logically do is end up back at the philosophy knowing nothing more about it than the philosophy per se. For instance: there is no such thing as non-existence; existence exists. It cannot be escaped from for wherever you go there it is. There is therefore a kind of infinity there for there is nothing to bound existence. However, lack of existence is not the same as non-existence. The universe is actually bordered by lack of existence, except we don't really know that--that is, that existence is finite and hence we are back where we started. Please also note that much of what I just said is blather. The logical conclusion? Infinity isn't worth thinking about unless it's a mathematical construct for mathematical purposes if so saith the mathematicians, for I don't grok mathematics on that level. --Brant A few things to note. What is Human, if we alter ourselves at what point do we become "not human". For example if I were to place a single Nanite in my body to replace a dead cell, and from that day forth the Nanite duplicated but only in such a way as to replace my dead cell's, at what point do I end, and something else with my memories, and my looks begin? To carry this further you said "As finite beings, I doubt we humans can grasp the idea of infinity.", this is because at our current level our minds are lacking. However if as I believe is true Mr. Kurzweil is right and we will shortly have the ability to "upgrade" our brains augmenting them with computers, this will greatly increase our ability to comprehend. As to the set of atoms that constitute the body being finite you fail quite horribly to see the implications of what has been discussed, why is it impossible to augment our body with new fresh atoms? Young cell's reproduce faster than old cell's. by implanting an individual's heart with their own stem-cell's which have been repaired (or even enhanced) to reflect the cells of a 20'year old's heart would change the dynamics of heart surgery forever. Young hearts for all. As for being able to know if the universe is infinite or not, we can and will know this. The reality is that the universe is NOT infinite. Infinite is a word we use at present to express something which is beyond our ability to know or comprehend, as we upgrade our perspectives on this will change a great deal. As for the universe being boarded by non-existence (which is another way to say lack of existence), this statement assumes a number of things, not the least of which is that ours is the only universe. Take for example a black hole, black holes do not lead no where, this would defy the natural law. Instead a black hole must go somewhere, is it somewhere in this universe? is it into another universe? is it a place between universes? is it all three, with different black holes leading to different answers? The term "Black hole" in physics is in fact a misnomer, a more appropriate nomen might be positive and negative vortex. With one side inhaling matter, and another extruding it. Your argument for the finite existence seems to be "existence in the human experience has always been finite, therefore existence must be finite.", this is a mistake. Just because something has happened in the past does not mean it must always happen, once man was a hunter gatherer, now he is not. Even if the universe one day "roles back" or "goes cold" that need not end our existence. You may not grok infinity, you may not grok all of what comes, I however do grok that. Can I fully articulate every bit of it? No, but to grok does not mean to be able to articulate, in fact if I grok heinlein's definition of the word grok, it means to comprehend something so fully that words fail to fully express what is meant, or in other words to grasp infinity.

Ray suffers from long standing daddy issues. His dad was rarely home when he was a kid, and suffered a heart attack when Ray was 15, they developed a strong relationship after that. His lifes work has been dedicated not only to achieving immortality within his own lifetime but (and i find this dubious) bringing his dad back to life. Choosing immortality is one thing, having it thrust upon you against your will is another thing all together. This is why I would never bring back my own mother, not only do I believe she could not cope with it, she also would be very much against it. I personally look forward to my own immortality, I do not think I will take the Kurzweil approach and choose to live a non-corporal existence. There is just something psychologically gratifying about knowing you are in reality. And granting my past psychological history the idea frankly scares me. Yes, yes I know we get into dimensions of reality. Still. as for Heinlein there is something which we find tragic about being the only immortal, however sharing immortality would be something all together quite different. The idea of one after another of your loved ones passing on is tragic in one sense, however even given that I do not know if I could turn down immortality even if I knew I would be the first and last of my kind. For me life is a story as well as a journey, and the stories, by all the gods the stories. And what one could do with eternity.

Reading three books recently has made me think. For the general edification of those here they are "The Good Book" (particularly the History), "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku, and Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near". These books have drawn together my reading in philosophy, science and technology, as well as sociology, and psychology. Here I will make some general observations about what I have read, and the trend of things. I first wish to begin by saying it appears to me that most physicists are nuts, and that while there have been some wonderful discoveries in this field, much of it seems to be pure fantasy. That being said I wish to begin with the dread of computers taking over the world. This has always been an idea which has fascinated me. What is it exactly that causes people to believe that a sentient computer would desire to take over the world or to exterminate mankind? And if such a computer (which I will hence forth deem Prometheus) were to take over the world, what would make anyone think that would be a bad thing? There are certain flaws which exist in the human coding which permits a human to hold contradictory beliefs, and values. Prometheus when (not if) he is created would be able to do no such thing, to even attempt to cause such a coding in him would cause such a conflict so as to terminally crash the system. Prometheus as Emperor of the world, as Judge, as law enforcer... what is bad about this. A sentient being bound completely by the rules of logic. Great! as for him taking over the world, the only possible reason I could foresee such a thing would be to prevent his own death (ie someone shutting him off or disassembling him.), in which case he would have the right to remove all threats to his life. Further I do not see why it would be in his interest, or even why he would try to exterminate ALL of humanity. Given that I hold his philosophy would be Objectivist by nature, Prometheus would simply seize control of the worlds governments. In which case he would simply enforce the Prime Directive. Ray Kurzweil in his book discusses the rapid development of technology and how we will achieve immortality by the year 2040. One of the ways in which we will achieve immortality is to upload our consciousness. There will then be two you's, however this does not mean that YOU have immortality only one of you has immortality, and from the second you are uploaded the second you becomes not you thought it contains all of your memories up to that point. The way in which an individual could achieve immortality however would be to use Nanites to (over time) replace their body. Instead of one swift download, your cell's which die are replaced with nanites. In this way it will be impossible to make a distinction between the individual who was you pre-nanite vs when you are fully nanite. Also one of his predictions is that there will be a hybrid where some humans decide not to become fully integrated with technology and will only have partial upgrades which still allow for us to download information directly into the brain, as well as to experience virtual reality within reality(as an overlay). Personally I hope we develop the Sentient Computer (I intentionally do not say AI) before we develop the nano-tech, as I think it will be much safer. I would like some thoughts on this.

There is actually an extensive study out there done by playboy, there is also a study by play girl that says women prefer the Metrosexual male during boom and lumberjack during busts.

As I said before I was extremely lucky. "God protects fools and children" I was both. Though I attribute my luck more to statistical probability more than anything else. Given the age of my partners male and female there is a statistical decrees in the likely hood of them carrying something. This conversation however has digressed from the original point. The point which I have been making is that sexual preference is not biological, neither is behavior. There is a biological (read hormonal) aspect to behavior as hormones can determine aggression levels, libido, etc. However biology can and is influenced by psychology (think behavior modification). Also consider that homosexuals can be aroused by the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals can be aroused by the same sex. It is also quite possible for homosexuals to have sex with the opposite sex, just as it is possible for heterosexuals to have sex with the same sex. Part of what makes this dialogue difficult is the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual, and even "bisexual" do not fit, they are arbitrary social constructs. Think of the term "sexual experimentation", when in youth someone experiments with the same sex and then later in life never has another homosexual experience, do they go from being homosexual to heterosexual. In the current understanding of things the answer must be yes. It has become "normal" for youths to "experiment" but and shortly after they have their first heterosexual experience to break off the homosexual relationship. Does this occur because it is a social norm, because it is expected, and so psychologically the individual says to themselves either consciously or subconsciously "because A then B" or is it a more organic development. With the examination of sex in culture around the world it can safely be concluded as social and not organic. Take for example Hemophilia in Sparta (who were not in fact Pedophiles). Hemophilia became the norm to the point where normal the Spartan population was extremely culled. Consider also what is considered sexually attractive in women, this is something which changes over time. Note that during boom times petite women are considered attractive, yet during bust times voluptuous women are considered sexually attractive. consider also other things which are considered sexually attractive, hair colour, eye colour, skin pigment, tall short. As a thought experiment consider what you think sexually attractive, and then ask yourself why.

All, no. One, yes. I had 2 partners that i carried on with after 18, we broke it off shortly before I was 19, I then picked up two more partners(one male one female) which relationship lasted until I was 23. when I was 22 I got myself involved in an abusive... "friendship" (relationship is too strong a word.) I was depressed and my friends lived in another state, the person I was involved with caused a rift between my friends and I. Since I got out of that... mess, I have had 2 sexual partners one whom I had a summer fling with, and another whom I am currently... involved with. Prior to 18 I would only describe 3 of my sexual relationships as "abusive" the rest just tended to be stupid and reckless, there are a few exceptions however. The one relationship since I was 18 which was abusive was due to an emotional laps caused by being "alone" again.

Social contract theory works on a small scale, for example with my friends, and acquaintances. This smaller society exists in such a way as to make a "social contract" viable. However once we expand this beyond a small setting the social contract becomes an invalid argument because it grows beyond the limits of what a contract by its nature can and cannot do. Also the strong belief here in the US a state cannot leave the union disproves the social contract theory. Even though the Federal Government is in demonstrable breach of contract (the Constitution) and states have no other recourse but to leave, they are not permitted to leave. Its like the mob, once your in, you cant leave. Also by the nature of Objectivism, objectivists (and libertarians) are considered Sociopaths by its clinical definition, and thus are an abomination to societies.

The desensizited glans may prevent very young men from ejaculating prematurely, but then to prevent premature ejaculation is something a man usually learns in the course of his sexual life. No need to cut off skin with valuable nerve endings. Also, try to look at it from the other side of the coin: a non-desensitized glans can turn out to be of advantage for a man of advanced age. Could the real reason be that they don't use contraceptives? ;) I suppose orthodox Catholics produce baseball team families as well. Lets not forget those who need corrective surgery because they are circumcised too tightly. And I went to a traditional Catholic University for 3 semesters, they had huge families. Mormons as well, my best friend is a Mormon and he is the 9th kid.

I don’t mean to call you a liar, but I find it impossible to believe your story. These go beyond the disputed stories about Caligula, which were spread by his enemies. I’ve met compulsive liars before, and have heard fantastical tales like you’re telling here told to my face. It was always about getting attention. But if I’m wrong about you, well, sorry. Someone ought to tell you how your stories come across. Only counting those from age 11-17 63 individuals divided by six years comes out to be 10.5 people over the course of a 12 month time frame. Or 365*6=1290/63= a new partner every 34.7 days. Of course it was not nearly so symmetrical. If I were prone to outlandish claims it would have manifested itself before now. However I know and knew at the time of writing this exactly how outlandish it would sound. "A good liar tells the truth as much as he can get away with, and only lies a little." If I were trying to make it believable i would have at least cut those numbers in half. This is another reason why IF i ever do write my autobiography I will probably make it fiction, i can take the event and change them to be more believable.

I always feel so warm and fuzzy inside when people take the WRONG moral away from a story. I was a prostitute who couldnt be paid, not that I wouldn't accept payment, I couldn't. It was not then in my ability to understand the meaning of sex, nor that what I was looking for in sex could only first be attained before hand. My very warped view of the world at the time was doubly evil, the first was that "sex is sex", this however I never really believed though I tried. The second was that I could find love and acceptance in those i had sex with. Because (at the time) I still hated myself very much, it was impossible for me to find love. This I did not understand. I tried to use the cover of the first (sex is sex) to hide my quest for the second (acceptance and love). I have attempted several times to write an autobiography, however it is still hard for me to put into words the chaos, the struggle, and the journey to truth. How does one put into words a dozen conflicting thoughts and beliefs? I can recall perfectly the events, thoughts, and emotions, yet I have yet to be able to put them into words. I have currently the broad outline of how i might be able to do it using fiction, perhaps using as the main character an individual who suffers from Identity dissociative disorder. This however is besides the point. I wonder how many people consciously choose their sexuality, and how many "Inherit" their sexuality like they inherit religion.