I have read her book The Fountainhead, a couple years ago. (I'm in my forties, btw, so not some impressionable kid the comments from other posters seem to focus on.) While I can appreciate her views, and the basics of Objectivism, she is hard to read. I usually compare her style to being hit in the head with a load of bricks. And that's just from the message in every paragraph. For me, the characters in that novel were all hateable.
At any rate, based on the methods used in this study, Atlas Shrugged certainly wouldn't make people uniformly more sympathetic to the plights of others—presumably only those being forced to feel for others against their will—and so wouldn't show up as the type of books they were aiming to test anyway.
This is why I agreed with your statement in my other reply. If the study was about being a "better person", reading her works would open up a view most people never had. Even if they immediately reject it, they have grown with the experience. But if the study is about the theory of mind, and getting people to understand what is in others' minds, she wouldn't be a good pick. She doesn't seem to have had that ability, or be sympathetic and accepting of thoughts that weren't her own.
Of course, this is just from reading one of her books, and a couple articles about her to get an understanding of the controversy around her. I'm not pretending to be well read about her. So thank you again for your explanations. They are appreciated.
Also, tell me what you do with the 20% of your post-tax income you give to charity. Do you give it to only one national group, or do you split it among several local groups?
Considering the bill became law in 2010, the fast option should be unneeded. Unfortunately, whoever started this project also felt the other two options were unneeded as well.
It isn't really a big surprise that the most regulated industry, outside of nuclear has the most out of control costs.
What? That's crazy talk. We all know that the health insurance industry is free to do whatever they want with no repercussions. There is no regulation of it at all.
it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white.
Obama grew up "whiter" (more privileged) than me,
You grew up in the wilds of a third world country?
and I'm blond with blue eyes.
So am I. I'm sure you grew up "more privileged" than I did. For example, did you have hot running water? If so, you were more privileged than me.
He was never "down for the struggle". According to my dad, I shouted "Black Power!" complete with raised fist when I was a toddler. I probably said it before Obama heard it.
Never? Never ever? Seems he chose to be "down for the struggle" when he could have had a smooth ride to riches and ease in a high-priced law firm. The fact that he came to the matter later in life than you doesn't remove the fact that he made the decision to champion the rights of the poor black people.
I can understand if you don't like him, or don't think he is a good leader, either of the country or of 'your people'. But you can't deny he didn't grow up in white America.
If a person's personal history has no place in your consideration for them to lead your country, you are a fool. Read my longer rebuttal for more specifics.
Attempting to squish my statement into a binary racial issue is lazy.
As the AC reply above points out -- of the two main party candidates, neither was a woman.
As far as the third party candidates that year, I looked at them, and didn't like any of them.
Would you expect me to vote for John McCain? Just because he was the Republican candidate, and I have more 'conservative' views than 'liberal' views? Too bad I have less 'liberal' views than McCain did, one year before the campaign. He was the perfect example of RINO. Happy to vote with the Democrats, on issue after issue. Whether he was thinking it would make them like him, or he actually agreed with their goals doesn't matter. Then, when seeking the Republican nomination, suddenly he is a 'staunch conservative'.
McCain was not worthy of my vote, or any conservative's vote. The best thing he did was bring Sarah Palin on board. Yes, she was the best part of that ticket, that's how I look at John McCain. Also, suddenly, his main selling point beyond his new-found conservatism, was that he was a war hero and POW. OK, great, what has he done lately? He's a war hero. But beyond that? He was a POW in Nam. OK, again, great. What about now? He was a POW and war hero. That's what I remember about his campaign.
Now, back to Barack Obama. You notice I said "Part of the reason was his skin color." It wasn't the only issue. It was one of several issues. And it wasn't specifically his skin color that I voted for. I felt that "it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white." He could have been a white guy, and still met this criteria. In fact, he is half white, in case everyone has forgotten that. But he did not grow up in typical white neighborhoods. He spent time living in Indonesia, and the rest of his childhood in Hawaii. I've lived in Hawaii. It's a beautiful place, but a "white neighborhood" it is not.
So, when I said "it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white," I meant it was time for someone who has other experiences in this world than all of the white candidates would have. It was time for a new perspective. This doesn't simply boil down to skin color, or I would have voted for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton years ago.
If a white guy with his experience had been running in the primary, Hillary would have beat him soundly. He was not ready to be chief executive of anything, let alone an entire country.
With that being said, I did vote for him in 2008. Part of the reason was his skin color. In the sense that it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white.
It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge.
First mistake. You have many choices to choose from. There are more than two candidates on the ballot.
I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties.
Second mistake. One party last fall had not only one female candidate, but two. Why not show them some support?
I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.
Both main parties are supporting this shit. Vote third party. Tell you friends you are voting third party, and why. Encourage them to vote their conscience too.
For completeness sake, I will agree that the sentence you quoted does mean JaredOfEuropa was projecting his early reading experience onto others, as far as which books are read. He also coincidentally projected his experience with his school system, i.e. schoolbooks and teachers. So, while typing a casual comment on an online message board, he was putting down thoughts as they came to him. However, he realized he was projecting his childhood experiences. He could have chosen to backspace a bit, and simply re-write the part you find so offensive. He chose to keep those thoughts intact, and instead qualified his remarks. That parenthetical qualifier explicitly limits the childhood education and the schoolbooks under discussion to what was used in the schools in his small country.
Unless you wish to claim intimate knowledge of the school system in the Netherlands, and that you know only a few schools use such books as he describes, I will accept his description of the books he had to read in the school system he was brought up attending. I will further accept his statement that he is limiting his discussion to only those books and only his country's school system.
No you dope. To the first of three nearly identical posts in a row. And you know I'm not posting replies to myself because I'm such an asshole in those situations.
I think I would hate to work in that building. Driving up to it every day and seeing all those angles and protrusions. I kinda got anxious just looking at the photo.
Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.
Who the fuck is talking about outlawing thought?
We're talking about outlawing behaviour
But we aren't talking about behavior such as physically attacking someone. We are talking about behavior of choosing who to associate with. That is definitely in the "personal belief" category of "thoughts".
If someone sells a service they sell it for money. That's it. Allowing businesses the choice of their clientele based on something other than the ability to play is simply allowing discrimination.
Yes, you are right. But I am saying I would rather allow the discrimination than outlaw it.
Also, I am limiting this to small businesses, not corporations or the government. I think you, as a person, have the right to choose who you deal with. I don't think I have the right to force you to deal with someone against your will, just because you are also the owner of a business.
You have no problem with this because you know you will never have to suffer it.
Yes, I have. So has my wife. Our cases weren't as severe as the violence that blacks faced in the South, even from their own government. Although, people of my wife's ethnic group were put in concentration camps, based on that one criteria. But I have been discriminated against. I reserve the right to choose to not associate with a business after that.
I have no respect for your "theoretical" position that has no connection with reality.
Fair enough, though I don't consider it theoretical.
No dogs or Irish allowed.
Yes, people can be racist assholes. But the law isn't able to change that. If anything, it seems to have made it worse.
Unfortunately, I'm sure our exchange here hasn't endeared me in your mind. So be it. I will still wish you good luck and prosperity.
Thank you for you response. This is the single most referenced point I have seen, over the years.
Except it wasn't "military service" that was required in the book. The requirement to get full citizenship was "federal service" which included many non-military fields. This story just happens to follow someone who was put in the military to fulfill his federal service.Therefor he focuses on the military aspect of his own service.
Heinlein himself stated that he never intended military service to be the only path to citizenship within the story. When I read the book (in high school or soon after), I never got the sense that citizenship was limited to military veterans only. I don't remember hearing about the controversy before reading the book, so it wasn't something already planted in my brain, so to speak. But I do know I wondered about limiting citizen ship to those who served their fellow people first, which is what the requirement really boils down to.
Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.
I would much rather know that the owner of the store around the corner doesn't like me based on my skin color, or religion, or wife's ethnicity (all of which aren't the same as mine). I would rather know that the store owner doesn't want me as a customer, because in that case, I would rather give my hard-earned money to someone who isn't like that. I would much rather you have the right to know if your money is supporting people who feel superior to you. But nowadays, you could be sending money to racist assholes, and you don't know because they aren't allowed to be racist in public.
So the basis of my views on discrimination laws is that outlawing "thoughtcrime" is bad, and I want to know if my money is supporting racism or other discrimination.
I don't know if that clarifies my stance, or solidifies your dislike of me. But I wanted to make it clear what my views are. Either way, it's nice talking with you. Hope you have a great weekend.
It was doubly funny (pardon the pun) for me, because it brought to mind another site I used to visit, that shut down last year.
Someone posted asking for ideas about science experiments, and the rest was epic. Especially since that sub-forum only had about a dozen regulars. So we all knew each other, and made personal responses to others' posts all the time.
The best book I stopped reading halfway would be one of Stephen King's. Both Misery and Pet Cemetary only kept my attention for a few chapters, then I watched the movie version. I planned to finish reading them, but never did. Others of his works were much better.
The worst book I stopped halfway through was Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That thing was so tedious it was painful. It also was the first book I ever put down, and have no intention of picking it back up again.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello again.
I have read her book The Fountainhead, a couple years ago. (I'm in my forties, btw, so not some impressionable kid the comments from other posters seem to focus on.) While I can appreciate her views, and the basics of Objectivism, she is hard to read. I usually compare her style to being hit in the head with a load of bricks. And that's just from the message in every paragraph. For me, the characters in that novel were all hateable.
At any rate, based on the methods used in this study, Atlas Shrugged certainly wouldn't make people uniformly more sympathetic to the plights of others—presumably only those being forced to feel for others against their will—and so wouldn't show up as the type of books they were aiming to test anyway.
This is why I agreed with your statement in my other reply. If the study was about being a "better person", reading her works would open up a view most people never had. Even if they immediately reject it, they have grown with the experience. But if the study is about the theory of mind, and getting people to understand what is in others' minds, she wouldn't be a good pick. She doesn't seem to have had that ability, or be sympathetic and accepting of thoughts that weren't her own.
Of course, this is just from reading one of her books, and a couple articles about her to get an understanding of the controversy around her. I'm not pretending to be well read about her. So thank you again for your explanations. They are appreciated.
http://www.foxnews.com/images/385241/3_21_ape450.jpg
NSFW: Shows nipplage.
You are under the false impression that an insurance company treats disease and cures medical conditions.
It's the doctors and hospitals that won't treat people unless they are paid that let people die.
One side of the story has a spokesidiot who is blond with big tits. Apparently that supersedes scientific study.
.
PS. Firefox underlined 'spokesidiot' with a red squiggly line. So I added the word to the dictionary.
Libertarians don't believe in legal contracts?
Interesting. Tell me more, please.
Also, tell me what you do with the 20% of your post-tax income you give to charity. Do you give it to only one national group, or do you split it among several local groups?
Considering the bill became law in 2010, the fast option should be unneeded. Unfortunately, whoever started this project also felt the other two options were unneeded as well.
It isn't really a big surprise that the most regulated industry, outside of nuclear has the most out of control costs.
What? That's crazy talk. We all know that the health insurance industry is free to do whatever they want with no repercussions. There is no regulation of it at all.
(I hope the sarcasm is obvious there.)
it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white.
Obama grew up "whiter" (more privileged) than me,
You grew up in the wilds of a third world country?
and I'm blond with blue eyes.
So am I. I'm sure you grew up "more privileged" than I did. For example, did you have hot running water? If so, you were more privileged than me.
He was never "down for the struggle". According to my dad, I shouted "Black Power!" complete with raised fist when I was a toddler. I probably said it before Obama heard it.
Never? Never ever? Seems he chose to be "down for the struggle" when he could have had a smooth ride to riches and ease in a high-priced law firm. The fact that he came to the matter later in life than you doesn't remove the fact that he made the decision to champion the rights of the poor black people.
I can understand if you don't like him, or don't think he is a good leader, either of the country or of 'your people'. But you can't deny he didn't grow up in white America.
If a person's personal history has no place in your consideration for them to lead your country, you are a fool. Read my longer rebuttal for more specifics.
Attempting to squish my statement into a binary racial issue is lazy.
As the AC reply above points out -- of the two main party candidates, neither was a woman.
As far as the third party candidates that year, I looked at them, and didn't like any of them.
Would you expect me to vote for John McCain? Just because he was the Republican candidate, and I have more 'conservative' views than 'liberal' views? Too bad I have less 'liberal' views than McCain did, one year before the campaign. He was the perfect example of RINO. Happy to vote with the Democrats, on issue after issue. Whether he was thinking it would make them like him, or he actually agreed with their goals doesn't matter. Then, when seeking the Republican nomination, suddenly he is a 'staunch conservative'.
McCain was not worthy of my vote, or any conservative's vote. The best thing he did was bring Sarah Palin on board. Yes, she was the best part of that ticket, that's how I look at John McCain. Also, suddenly, his main selling point beyond his new-found conservatism, was that he was a war hero and POW. OK, great, what has he done lately? He's a war hero. But beyond that? He was a POW in Nam. OK, again, great. What about now? He was a POW and war hero. That's what I remember about his campaign.
Now, back to Barack Obama. You notice I said "Part of the reason was his skin color." It wasn't the only issue. It was one of several issues. And it wasn't specifically his skin color that I voted for. I felt that "it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white." He could have been a white guy, and still met this criteria. In fact, he is half white, in case everyone has forgotten that. But he did not grow up in typical white neighborhoods. He spent time living in Indonesia, and the rest of his childhood in Hawaii. I've lived in Hawaii. It's a beautiful place, but a "white neighborhood" it is not.
So, when I said "it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white," I meant it was time for someone who has other experiences in this world than all of the white candidates would have. It was time for a new perspective. This doesn't simply boil down to skin color, or I would have voted for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton years ago.
Obama is in office because of that fact.
Obama is in office because of his skin color.
If a white guy with his experience had been running in the primary, Hillary would have beat him soundly. He was not ready to be chief executive of anything, let alone an entire country.
With that being said, I did vote for him in 2008. Part of the reason was his skin color. In the sense that it was time for America to have a president who didn't grow up white.
It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge.
First mistake. You have many choices to choose from. There are more than two candidates on the ballot.
I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties.
Second mistake. One party last fall had not only one female candidate, but two. Why not show them some support?
I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.
Both main parties are supporting this shit. Vote third party. Tell you friends you are voting third party, and why. Encourage them to vote their conscience too.
Are you asking for a certified copy of his birth certificate?
For completeness sake, I will agree that the sentence you quoted does mean JaredOfEuropa was projecting his early reading experience onto others, as far as which books are read. He also coincidentally projected his experience with his school system, i.e. schoolbooks and teachers. So, while typing a casual comment on an online message board, he was putting down thoughts as they came to him. However, he realized he was projecting his childhood experiences. He could have chosen to backspace a bit, and simply re-write the part you find so offensive. He chose to keep those thoughts intact, and instead qualified his remarks. That parenthetical qualifier explicitly limits the childhood education and the schoolbooks under discussion to what was used in the schools in his small country.
Unless you wish to claim intimate knowledge of the school system in the Netherlands, and that you know only a few schools use such books as he describes, I will accept his description of the books he had to read in the school system he was brought up attending. I will further accept his statement that he is limiting his discussion to only those books and only his country's school system.
No you dope. To the first of three nearly identical posts in a row. And you know I'm not posting replies to myself because I'm such an asshole in those situations.
Thanks for playing along.
JaredOfEuropa specifically said:
(I'm talking about education in the Netherlands here, and no, I am not kidding. YMMV per school, though).
I'm willing to bet that not only is Texas not in the Netherlands, but also that you go to a different school than he does.
Well, I wonder why R&D is shuffled off to the rectangular buildings away from the glorious ring.
Why don't they like those engineers?
Maybe they'll group people together along the ring in such a method that that walk isn't required.
Or have a monorail on the third floor.
I think I would hate to work in that building. Driving up to it every day and seeing all those angles and protrusions. I kinda got anxious just looking at the photo.
Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.
Who the fuck is talking about outlawing thought?
We're talking about outlawing behaviour
But we aren't talking about behavior such as physically attacking someone. We are talking about behavior of choosing who to associate with. That is definitely in the "personal belief" category of "thoughts".
If someone sells a service they sell it for money. That's it. Allowing businesses the choice of their clientele based on something other than the ability to play is simply allowing discrimination.
Yes, you are right. But I am saying I would rather allow the discrimination than outlaw it.
Also, I am limiting this to small businesses, not corporations or the government. I think you, as a person, have the right to choose who you deal with. I don't think I have the right to force you to deal with someone against your will, just because you are also the owner of a business.
You have no problem with this because you know you will never have to suffer it.
Yes, I have. So has my wife. Our cases weren't as severe as the violence that blacks faced in the South, even from their own government. Although, people of my wife's ethnic group were put in concentration camps, based on that one criteria. But I have been discriminated against. I reserve the right to choose to not associate with a business after that.
I have no respect for your "theoretical" position that has no connection with reality.
Fair enough, though I don't consider it theoretical.
No dogs or Irish allowed.
Yes, people can be racist assholes. But the law isn't able to change that. If anything, it seems to have made it worse.
Unfortunately, I'm sure our exchange here hasn't endeared me in your mind. So be it. I will still wish you good luck and prosperity.
Thank you for you response. This is the single most referenced point I have seen, over the years.
Except it wasn't "military service" that was required in the book. The requirement to get full citizenship was "federal service" which included many non-military fields. This story just happens to follow someone who was put in the military to fulfill his federal service.Therefor he focuses on the military aspect of his own service.
Heinlein himself stated that he never intended military service to be the only path to citizenship within the story. When I read the book (in high school or soon after), I never got the sense that citizenship was limited to military veterans only. I don't remember hearing about the controversy before reading the book, so it wasn't something already planted in my brain, so to speak. But I do know I wondered about limiting citizen ship to those who served their fellow people first, which is what the requirement really boils down to.
Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.
I would much rather know that the owner of the store around the corner doesn't like me based on my skin color, or religion, or wife's ethnicity (all of which aren't the same as mine). I would rather know that the store owner doesn't want me as a customer, because in that case, I would rather give my hard-earned money to someone who isn't like that. I would much rather you have the right to know if your money is supporting people who feel superior to you. But nowadays, you could be sending money to racist assholes, and you don't know because they aren't allowed to be racist in public.
So the basis of my views on discrimination laws is that outlawing "thoughtcrime" is bad, and I want to know if my money is supporting racism or other discrimination.
I don't know if that clarifies my stance, or solidifies your dislike of me. But I wanted to make it clear what my views are. Either way, it's nice talking with you. Hope you have a great weekend.
It was doubly funny (pardon the pun) for me, because it brought to mind another site I used to visit, that shut down last year.
Someone posted asking for ideas about science experiments, and the rest was epic. Especially since that sub-forum only had about a dozen regulars. So we all knew each other, and made personal responses to others' posts all the time.
http://forums.starcitygames.com/showthread.php?39077-Science-experiment
The best book I stopped reading halfway would be one of Stephen King's. Both Misery and Pet Cemetary only kept my attention for a few chapters, then I watched the movie version. I planned to finish reading them, but never did. Others of his works were much better.
The worst book I stopped halfway through was Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That thing was so tedious it was painful. It also was the first book I ever put down, and have no intention of picking it back up again.
Yes I did. Now you must pay me. :^P