Karl

The problem is that it is the EU that is stuck in the 50s and the rest of the world has sprinted past it. It was set up, in trade terms as a customs zone where every country paid a chunk of cash according to their wealth in order that it could restrict external competition. That was a crap idea at the time, but now it's completely ridiculous because of the growth outside the euro zone it is getting left further and further behind. It's an analogue ideology in a digital age. It's like sticking to steam engines. In terms of your tax, remember that the EU can decide what you should pay and, up to now they have always been slightly guided by our threat to leave or veto, but that threat will vanish after the 23rd. Cameron already gave up an important veto for no advantage, then, if we vote to stay in, they have us by the short and curlies. My brother is voting to stay in. He works in a farming area. His reason was purely down to the EU farming subsidy, which, he was concerned woukd be removed by Cameron. I reminded him that Cameron wasn't voting to leave and, should we leave and Vameron withdraw those subsidies, then he could get rid of Cameron in 3 years. However, if we vote to stay, well, the subsidy is EU controlled and big agricultural countries like Turkey, France, Ukraine, Yugoslavia might well decide Britain was getting too much of a deal considering the strength of its financial hub. It might suggest we can keep our banks but lose the farm subsidy in the same way we lost fishing rights under the CFP. Remember that nothing is ever static. You have a good deal now, but what about in 5 years time ?

Actually its pretty simple. Put aside all the pro and con arguments about economics and immigration. Essentially it's a question of freedom. There are always risks in staying or leaving, but essentially the choice is more or less Liberty. Reality in politics is never as dramatic as it is portrayed. By staying in we won't suddenly topple into an abyss on the 23rd if we vote to stay, neither will we find ourselves in the middle of a vast unknown if we leave. Really the Government is making itself into something far more than it really is and less than it is: the fact is that it just isn't required to make 'trade deals'. Individuals and companies can trade, and do trade unilaterally with individuals and companies in other countries, the problem is that as members of the EU we are forced to abide by certain trading rules and regulations which makes this more expensive and difficult-but not impossible. So, outside the EU we would find it easier to trade as UK PLC, but, of course the EU wants to try and prevent any of the outside trade entering its borders. It's protectionism for its members and for that we pay a lot of money. Government also have got into pretending that every bit of workers rights and directives can only be made by the EU. Even Labour, who is supposed to be the standing opposition, is acting as if it's hands were ties, that if it managed to win an election and we were no longer in the EU then it would have to stand around looking stupid, unable to institute any laws or manage to form strategic alliances with countries outside the EU. That if we couldn't get a 'trade deal' then we couldn't ever trade with any countries. Yet, without trade deals we are happily trading with the USA-despite Obamas 'back of the Q' scare tactics, we don't actually need the politicians to do anything at all because we can do it ourselves, but it's just easier if we can tear down the trade barriers. So, it's more freedom outside the EU with a bit of jockeying if we want a trade deal with the EU-but there actually isn't a need for one. Businesses have always traded on the continent and will continue doing so. We can decide who comes in to the country and get back to making our own laws. On balance it will be cheaper to be out as we pay for a lot of EU waste and whoever is in power can decide where tax is spent. We get to elect our own completely seperate Government democratically. Inside the EU we continue with the trading relationship we currently have, we can't unilaterally make trade deals with other countries, but that doesn't stop us trading with them either. The likelihood is we will be drawn into the Euro if it doesn't collapse. More importantly we continue not to be able to elect the Government. Our own Government is more like a city council which we do elect, but we have no power over the EUs seven unelected presidential heads or their workings. We have a less democratic system. The UK Government has no idea what the future will be in or out and neither does anyone else. We might be better or worse off, but no amount of experts and high sounding institutions has a clue. They have consistently failed to make the correct forecasts or predictions throughout the years. They didn't see either of the two recent crashes, they took us into the disaster of the ERM, they forecast disaster if we didn't adopt the euro, they couldn't even correctly predict the current defecit a few months, never mind years ahead. Put simply, if these people were so great at predicting the financial future then they wouldn't waste their time being economists and financial gurus. Instead they would just play the markets and make trillions from their abilities to forecast. As none of them are putting their money where their mouths are, then you can be reliably certain that they just don't know and therefore disregard anything they say.

Contempt is right.

Probably wondering if this is a new kind of prelude to opening the kitty feast.

So, Cameron tells us that Turkey have 'no chance of membership of the EU' . He tells Turkey that he is a staunch supporter of their application for the EU. He contradicts his own minister over the right to veto. Well we know Cameron can't stop lying and he isn't very good at it. All that upper class bluster and fine education is supposed to convince the stupid masses that whatever he says is the truth, no matter how many times he contradicts himself. Let's be clear, Cameron is never clear. Anyway, it's interesting that Farages speech about Turkey joining the EU in the European Parliament is not contradicted by its members. Certainly it seems that Turkey is going to be fast tracked despite Camerons assertions that it can't happen.

You would imagine, but you would be wrong. This need to 'prove' is precisely what is being challenged because, they say this is anti-transgender. People are no longer to be labelled by gender, but to self identify as 'non binary'. I think if you haven't been keeping up with these things you won't have grasped just how far things have already gone. This is of course a Collectivist ideology of denying identity. It's also not limited to children, but that's where propaganda works the best. No need for a culture, family or gender. Just human packages stamped with a number.

Ask questions. First you have to know what you want. Marriage isn't some sacrificial selfless worship for either party. You have to build trust, figure out why you want to be together, don't compromise either no matter how minimal it is, because it must be completely selfish to the point you share because you want to, not because you feel you have to. You have to be two very independent characters that have a common purpose in uniting because you are stronger together than you are apart. if you can't get what you are looking for then buy a cat or a dog :-) although cats aren't known for their fidelity to owners-only to food cupboards and fire sides .

Except that 'Transgender' according to the Obama Government, has nothing to do with being a transvestite or somebody that has the intention of have elective surgery, or had surgery. In effect, any man or boy is now fully entitled to enter a women's/girls changing room, toilets or showers as long as they think they might be 'gender fluid'. Well I can't see any problem with that :-/ I wonder if there is a seperate provision for Muslims because they have quite strict laws against that kind of thing. Just Christians and Atheists eh ;-)

I was 22 when I found the love of my life. I had only 1 serious relationship prior to that time and several short flings-though I was definitely not what might be termed promiscuous because I had sufficient pride in myself not to get hooked on meaningless sex. Once I had a bit of sexual experience it struck me that, though it was fun, it wasn't really anything special. It was a physical release, a bit like drinking, it's fun, you get drunk a few times, but for me it could never be an addiction. If it happens, then it happens. I was certainly not hunting-metaphorically-around every boozer, liquor store and drinks cabinet in the hope of finding utopia. I don't know what sort of women you are dating if their only interest is having an orgasm they really are in a pretty bad way. I'd move on, they sound worse than teenage boys. The attraction has to be far more than purely physical, if they are really so focused on their clitoris then they are hardly going to have much going on in their heads. Celibacy sounds like a lack of self confidence rather than a choice. Maybe you need to work on that angle first. You don't have to be a chick magnet, or a super stud, I promise you I'm none of those things, but neither did I ever feel desperate or needy, but I was highly selective-as I expected women to be of me.

That's ma dawg :-)

Well I doubt that I'm the only one. There has to be some kind of physical attraction though, but my experience led me to act objectively prior to even knowing what objectivism was. That approach meant I have a very successful, deep, intimate and loving relationship. We have great fun together and laugh all the time. I can only be serious when I get on the forum ;-)

Still not with you. People are people. I don't know what 'extremes' you are alluding to ? As I said, I'm not Daoist, it was the strange title of the subject which got me interested. I usually walk right on by specific forums because I can't relate to them, or give advice about specific aspects of those practices.

Well you will have to pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get back out there. We all get setbacks, the thing is to learn the lessons and avoid the manipulative ones next time. We all go through this, it's life, put on a record, get drunk, go out with your friends and do stuff. It isn't a race, take your time to find the right one and reject every single girl without compromise if the target of your ardour doesn't match your expectations. Make a list of questions and find out by asking her about what she would do if ....? In those circumstances. Everyone likes to talk about themselves so have fun with it and enjoy life.

I would ask you the same question. What do you mean by 'the need for obliteration in America' ? Some American are Confuscianist and others are not. Some Americans eat at tables and others do not. Does that mean you judge Americans as needing to be obliterated (which they don't), or that you think all Americans are trying to obliterate themselves (which they aren't)? Sounds pretty twisted up to me, but, as I said, I'm not Daoist.

Women with values like yours do exist but it's important to differentiate recreational sex from sex in a committed, intimate relationship. Living a celibate lifestyle is fine if that what you have chosen, but if you are actually looking for a partner then you are effectively evading the effort required to find someone to share your life with. If you can do without sex then that's fine, but it isn't a necessity either way. It's often necessary to go through several relationships in order to learn from your mistakes and apply the lessons to your future goal. Figure out what you want, be consistent, go to places and join communities which best represent your virtues and values; be discriminative, know your like/dislikes and find out in advance if your potential partner shares those values. It's not easy, but it's worth the search if life on your own is unpalatable. Don't drown yourself in practices in order to avoid the effort and experience of failure, embrace both.

Yes, I believe we will see a radical shift to the far right. Funnily enough I've only recently posted my views on disqus regarding the likely outcome of a vote to remain. I think the elite think we will all settle back into our boxes once the referendum is complete, but with no solution to mass immigration I don't think the 'tolerance' will hold for very much longer. My guess is that we will witness a very definite split in the country between London and everywhere else. Dissatisfied Conservative and Labour voters will feel very betrayed if they are passionate about sovereignty, particularly in regard of the overwhelming elitist firepower being brought out and the sheer volume of remainiac lies. The Conservative party might survive, but I doubt the Conservative vote will. Those in Labour are likely to throw a protest vote and it will be UKIP that will receive them.

If I sum up, it's probably easier to simply say that objectivism holds that consciousness has identity. It is something and not no-thing. There is no dichotomy between will and reason. Reason IS will, and therefore the power of choice is the power that rules man, in regard to both body (action) and soul. Man is not only free, but is directly a product of his freedom; of his intellect. For Satre, will is potent because reason isn't. For objectivism reason is will and will is reason. Good questions by the way. I'm not overly familiar with existentialism or Satre. Like many philosophies it is relatively easy to draw conclusions based on apparent similarities, but the divergence is greater once the complete philosophy is taken into account.

I would never claim to be one :-)

Yeah, reading this thread gets me like that, but then I'm not a Daoist so I can't think in such a twisted manner.

Not quite what I meant. If one believes that primary virtues are purely altruistic (in Jesus case he said to love thy enemy/neighbour as thyself) , then one becomes selfless, any act which is selfless has no value because one has abandoned judgement, therefore abandoned the virtue of the just. In that case one puts no value on ones life and is, in effect, a hopeless suicide looking for any chance to sacrifice themselves and end their existence. I was discussing what primary virtues one would require at a minimum before it was possible to act from kindness, compassion etc. My practice absolutely requires me to choose specific virtues as primaries and to live by them. The standard of value being my own life, and this, against which all other values are measured and the primary means of achieving value is the use of reason. From reason comes the principles of virtue for which all values chosen are to be gained and kept. Merit is one of those virtues, it is better called justice, it is for a man to judge and prepare to be judged. This is the precise opposite of the biblical incantation of 'judge not, lest you be judged'.

The seeking of power is a moral corruption. To seek power is to abandon independent productiveness and become a parasite on the backs of the productive.

No, but if I was, it would be a lazy one.

Then I would have to get the most lazy of hounds :-)

Ah yes, the planetary treadmill is a trial for sure. ;-) although, you know Junko, that sounds a bit like an excuse for being a lazy doggy.

That takes me back. Those were the days when nightclubs required a suit and tie.