• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About BaalChatzaf

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/24/1936

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Robert J. Kolker
  • Description
    I am retired, but far from inactive. A day without a twenty mile bicycle ride is a day without joy.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Music: Mozart, Bethoven. Movie: Casablanca. Favorite Philsopher: David Hume
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests
    mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Recent Profile Visitors

25,306 profile views
  1. If A kills B, in most societies A better have a damned good reason or excuse for kill B. A dislike for killing a member of one's own family, clan or society generally provokes disapproval. That is almost a wired in response and it makes very good evolutionary sense. Reciprocal benevolence within a family or clan promotes survival and those who have the impulse or inclination probably have a survival advantage. Darwinian selection would tent to promote this inclination or response. But it is not always present. There are sociopaths like Ted Bundy popping up. Fortunately sociopaths who are not averse to homicide are relatively rare.
  2. In the first few minutes he says he patented a treatment for radiation..... Hence the question. The man sounded like a crack pot from the git go. When he made that claim a ceased wasting my time listening to him.
  3. has this crackpot's alleged radiation treatment been validated by a double blind clinical study? When I hear claims like this my bullshit detection needle swings way over and bends 90 degrees.
  4. Since some killing is not morally wrong and some killing is morally wrong, what objective criteria do you have to distinguish the two. Murder is a form of homicide that is defined legally. Certain aspects of a homicide must be established objectively before a charge of murder can be made. Morally judgments are often subjective or emotional. Legally judgments tend to be more objective or fact oriented. Murder is defined legally. Certain facts must be established before a charge of murder can be brought. Here is an excerpt from the Wiki article: chew on this a bit: "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is a killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent (mens rea), recklessness."
  5. Title, page, paragraph for that "quote" you claim, if you please Answer to your question: the law defines murder as wrongful homicide. next question? Some homicide is kosher both legally and morally. Such as killing in defense of one's self or one's family member. Some homicide is culpable but not murder as in accidental homicide. There may be some tort action involved there. Killing as an act of war following a legal order from a superior or defending one's self and unit in fire fight. That is homicide but not murder. Also criminal negligence. Legal action may ensue. Accidental homicide is not murder. I have done one homicide. Accidental but not criminally negligent. Very unfortunate, both for the man killed and me. My brains were scrambled for years by that incident. The man was wearing black on a rainy night and stepped right in from of my car which was going at a legal speed. I had no way of stopping in time. I still have flashbacks of that. Take my advice. Spill no blood.
  6. Nonsense. Empiricism is gaining knowledge through the senses first. It is the only way we have of learning about the world and understanding it. Perception --> Concepts --> Understanding. The first step Perception is the main part of empiricism. We only know what we first get through the sense. There are no innate ideas.
  7. Fine. Try this: On matters of taste logical and rational dispute is not appropriate. We like what we like and we dislike what we dislike and there is rarely a logical basis for likes and dislikes.
  8. Some of what Peikoff writes resonates with a religion that Maximillian Robespierre attempted to impose on France as part of the French Revolution. It was the apotheosis of Man and of Reason. Unfortunately it became a pernicious collectivism in Robespierre's mind and practice. Enough people saw what Robespierre had in mind and what he was advocating, a vicious Tyranny. Fortunately for the world Robespierre was made to suffer the same fate he imposed on others in the name of the Great Gods, Man and Reason. Robespierre had his turn on the guillotine.
  9. Latin. It says one does not argue matters of taste.
  10. De gustabus non disputandum est....
  11. That is true. I think such a wish is perverse.
  12. Considering the Republican opposition to Obama (2008 and 1012) it is no surprise that Obama won the popularity contests. The republican alternatives were wretched. The 2008 would have put that dunce Sara Palin a hearbeat away from office and in 2012 Mitt Romney was clueless. Actually he clueless all the time, not just in 2012.
  13. Are you implying Trump is the good? Or have I falsely inferred that?
  14. T The first is not a denial of knowledge. It places passion before reason in the hierarchy of motives. Preferring the destruction of the world to the injury to one's finger is NOT a logical contradiction, but it is perverse Scientists are motivated (so that tell us) by curiosity which is a passion. Any problem with that? Whoever said empiricism leads to a denial of knowledge or the capability of knowing is just plain wrong. Empiricism puts greater weight or reliance on what is perceived as compared to what is assumed as self evident.
  15. you miss the technical logical point. Modus Tollens and Modus Ponens are equally valid. A. a, a implies b yields b B. -b, a implies b yields -a they are equivalent and both valid. In indirect proof is as much a proof as a direct proof. The word "prove" in this context means to yield by valid inference from the premises. A true premise always yields a true conclusion. BTW, logic does not tell us which premises are true. Logic tells us only what premises imply or which conclusions can be inferred from the premises