Hannibal

...

Not where I come from. I think you're missing out on something the vast majority of the rest of us experience. Not necessarily better or worse. Just different.

That just means "I'd quite like to have sex with you.". Not really the same thing :s

The thing with Objectivists is that they only really differ in their analysis, and not really at all when it comes to principle. It's a very small difference in reality, and in the current reality we live in, their analysis is correct. Perhaps if we lived in an Objectivist society, then the next evolution in their analysis would be a free market for police etc. But right now it's just not realistic.

There is a difference between receiving insults from a real loving friend, and from a pretend friend that is using you. As I've aged I've come to see it like this: When someone persistently mocks you in ways that could be credible, then they are either a pretend friend, or are damaged in some way and are behaving badly even tough they may be your friend. When someone mocks you in silly or outrageous ways, by suggesting something so obscene they are really saying 'I love you man'. It shows that you are close enough that you can say these things to each other and know that you don't mean it. It's something that wouldn't be tolerated from someone that wasn't a close friend, and as such the act of doing it - knowing that it will be tolerated - is to say "I'm your good friend and I want to remind you of it".

Is this largely what people refer to when they talk about "building castles in the sky?". It's normal. Just don't lose yourself like DiCaprio's wife in 'Inception'!

A far as I can see it, that which is rational is that which furthers your ability to act according to your nature (for want of a better phrasing). That is to say that stealing is irrational for most of us because for most of us it comes with risk, and it damages our own self-esteem and our own ability to derive real joy from a sense of self-pride. If, though, you are a sociopath, then it's only the risk that is to be weighed up when making a rational choice (in that scenario). I.e, good and evil are man-made concepts. They apply to 'man' insofar as man is common. Where man is not common (a small percentage are psychopaths, etc) then good & evil will mean something different. With that being the case, there is no difficulty is imagining a scenario where an evil (by other people's standards) man does evil rationally. That man, though, is a man insofar as his categorisation with regards to species is concerned. But his nature is not what the rest of us would consider to be that of a 'man'.

Yes. If you are inherently 'evil', by normal standards, then doing evil is rational. I.e. if you obtain real joy from doing evil, then that is good. Fortunately most of us aren't inherently evil.

It's the same reason my good friend surprised me by saying he really likes the monarchy here in the UK. I hadn't thought of it before, but as he said it's the last bastion of defence manifested in some nationalistic pride which is stopping the cancerous tidal wave of leftism from breaking over us all and washing England out to the bottom of the ocean forever. That makes no sense. Unless you think snapping your fingers to put all rapists in jail is initiating force against people who choose to live as rapists.

Fewer muslims in the UK would reduce terror threats. Here they rule the prison gangs, and native prisoners convert to islam because the food is better. It's a breeding ground for a dangerous ideology in an environment full of people of lower intelligence and little to lose.

It depends on your definition of property, as aggression is a violation of property rights. Anarchists (qua anarchism) don't believe in property, and so they can claim to be anarchists while opposing any system dependent of property rights. Of course their ideas about property are wrong. This is the crux of the issue. The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. It mkes no sense to argue about literature before you can even agree on an alphabet.

Screams of loser.

Assuming that you can feel confident that you are in fact speaking truth, then understand this... the more self-respect you have - the more of a man you are - then the fewer 'friends' you will have. Early on you'll think this the unfortunate fact of reality. Later on you'll find it a convenient fact of reality. There is no real value in superficial friendships. A healthy garden needs a good pruning every so often. If someone can't display intellectual honesty and integrity towards you , then they aren't a friend worth having. If they do, but are just wrong, then that's fine. I couldn't bear grudge against a friend who who is honest but mistaken. Someone who's not honest doesn't display the respect necessary tp be considered a real friend.

You don't see nobility in living free and granting all others that same courtesy? What greater kind of nobility can there be than that? Anything else requires violent compulsion.

In that case I hope you wouldn't turn to the state to seek justice should your wife ever be raped.