RoR: Forum

What, by the way, Jim, are you wearing in that photograph?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/18, 4:06pm)

Post 21

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 4:06pm

Deleted content due to objections.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 12/19, 10:28am)

Post 22

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 4:14pm

What, by the way, Jim, are you wearing in that photograph?

If you're referring to the picture that accompanies all my posts, it's a normal looking dress shirt with thin black and grey vertical stripes that the computer program at rebirthofreason totally failed at processing correctly.

Post 23

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 4:14pm

Why don't you try posting an actual image rather than a link to random porn images?
(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/19, 8:22am)

Post 24

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 4:17pm

It looks like a cool but dated animal print shirt for singles clubs. I keep thinking Austin Powers.

Post 25

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 4:28pm

Ted, I don't know how to post actual images here. Otherwise, I would totally have posted the specific image I singled out.

Any help with this would be appreciated.

Post 26

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 4:31pm

Yes, if someone figured out how to take that distorted image and transfer the pattern onto a dress shirt, I'd buy it.

And then repost the image here and see what further weirdness the photo edited software did to it, get some fractal designer chic going.

Post 27

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 6:19pm

Jim, here are the instructions.

Post 28

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 7:02pm

Deleted content due to objections.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 12/19, 10:29am)

Post 29

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 7:52pm

Have I created a monster?

Jim, you might want to watch your wording. There are women and bisexuals here too. "Hetero" doesn't mean straight male nor does it mean person who is attracted to women.

That said, for those looking for commie beefcake, we have

Post 30

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 9:34pm

Deleted content due to objections.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 12/19, 10:30am)

Post 31

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 9:49pm

Jim, give me a woman who looks good without makeup.

Post 32

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 9:51pm

I can answer this question seriously. No, I would not date, but I could easliy simply sleep with a socialist.

The purpose of dating is marriage or, if you are a well adjusted homo, a long-term monogamous relationship.

There's nothing wrong with casual sex with a socialist. But that's a form of exercise, not friendship. I don't really care or care to know who my work-out partner is voting for. I don't want him to talk. If I found out someone I was boinking happened to be a real life Communist?

I have indeed decided not to have sex with both men and women whom I might have dated were they acceptable. There are other fish in the sea.

Post 33

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 9:58pm

Jim, give me a woman who looks good without makeup.

Sorry, Ted, I believe in the NIOF principle, and giving a woman to someone else violates their self-ownership. And even if I were to violate the NIOF principle and own another human being, Objectivists ethics would require that I not act altruistically and sacrifice someone I value by handing them over for no valuable consideration in return.

Oh, wait, did you mean give you a PICTURE of a woman who looks good without makeup?

/attempted Objectivist humor

Post 34

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 10:07pm

Ted, to respond with equal seriousness: while I respect your principles expressed in post #32, my own personal values would allow me to date a socialist for the purpose of having a long-term relationship that could lead to marriage (disclaimer: I mean this theoretically, assuming I wasn't currently married, in the wildly improbable chance that my wife would actually wind up on an Objectivist website and see this), if enough other things were right in the relationship.

Political philosophy just isn't that important on the list of things that matter to me in a LTR, which is why I married someone considerably more statist than I am, and the subject of politics didn't even come up until months into the relationship, IIRC.

The dating pool of libertarian / Objectivist women is incredibly thin, since women tend, on average, to be considerably more statist then men (with wide variations from that average, of course.)

Post 35

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 10:10pm

Angelina Jolie, Isabella Rossellini, Jodie Foster all look or did look good if splotchy without makeup. And, strangely enough, I once dreamt of Britney Spears, although she's not my type when I'm awake.

Post 36

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 7:40am

Those who are enjoying this thread can call me a prude, or a stick-in-the-mud, or a humorless kill-joy if you want, but I had to say that this thread seems tacky. If it were done inside of the "Banter" section, that would be different and I would not care in least.

To me, this shouldn't be a part of the public face of Rebirth of Reason. That post where Ted differentiates between sleeping with someone ("exercise") and dating (leading up to long-term relationship) - that is intellectual content worth discussion (post #32), but most of the thread doesn't make it into that category.

This thread isn't that bad, and there have been others that were worse, but I didn't say anything and it bothers me. Perhaps others feel the same way.

The group who are active posters here isn't that large right now and I suspect that it gives a homey feeling, a sense of familiarity, and encourages much more personal posts - but at the same time it is a forum that depends upon its public face for the attraction of those who will end up replacing those who for whatever reason leave. I value a high level of intellectual content and sometimes cringe when a thread becomes a long string of one-liners yet aren't in the Banter section.

Maybe this is just me....

Post 37

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 8:25am

My fault, I started it. I have edited some of the posts. Unfortunately I think the poll topic invites the response.

Post 38

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 8:32am

I agree with Steve.

I'm not a prude, but I know about treating likes alike -- and I know the difference between philosophy and porn. This thread pushes the envelope to the point where it breaks and all the letters come spewing out. If I ran this site, I'd say "tone it down or take it to banter (no exceptions)".

Ed

Post 39

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 8:35am