All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. Do you see her different from Amy Farrah Fowler since she started doin Jeopardy? As Elaine Betes said, Is she sponge worthy now?
  3. Yesterday
  4. I'm worried, too, that we might be headed for a situation where the only way people will be able to get out of being "vaxxed" and still keep their jobs is to claim a religious exemption. Ellen
  5. But those would still probably be marked under "death by Covid", anyway...
  6. Pretty sure a civil war over this would kill way more than the virus and the vaccine combined….
  7. Not sure what happens when you click the link; it seems to be working fine for me when I test it. But just in case there is a problem: [Edit: ah...when you click Robert Campbells link to his article, the page is no longer there...Here's an alternative, then:] http://campber.people.clemson.edu/peikovianarbitrary.pdf
  8. Thanks for that correction and the rest. The parents are to be deeply sympathized with in making such contentious choices for the immediate and long term good of their children. I would never criticize and second-guess anyone's choice - either way - it's the fact that they are being compelled and were placed in that invidious position of *no choice*, I'm mad about. Religious exemptions, fine. But I am disturbed that this may be the last line of defense against public/Gvt. intrusion into the people's bodies and lives. ("We will nobly grant this special favor for you religious types only") On that risk-benefit ratio for adolescents, in my opinion the equation may be reduced to: What is known now (the small dangers of Covid to a kid without comorbidities) versus What is unknown in future (the potential, possibly cumulative health consequences of vaccines over a lengthy period, his/her lifespan i.e., myocarditis, for one concern always raised).
  9. "the problem with that is, in order to determine whether or not an argument is arbitrary, one has to actually look at the evidence first". Excellent. Something I've wanted to do recently is re-read with improved understanding, hopefully, R. Campbell's essay (a pity your link doesn't open but I can find it on OL). To my mind, there have been too many instant, out of hand, dismissals by Objectivists, lately, largely of the simple type: "Conspiracy theory!! Heh! Ignore!" Also, what one could call a "from whence it comes" refutation. He/she said this, (probably a conservative and Christian) - it was published in ABC (a conservative newspaper or other media) - therefore do not waste your time or bother to read and consider any further . Otoh, THIS came from e.g. the NYT, so commands immediate validity and respect. I have regularly wondered how much Peikoff's arbitrary assertion doctrine has affected this (what one can only call) dismissive, lazy, prejudiced, and sometimes, arrogant mode of thinking. Whether by misinterpreting his theory or by interpreting it very well...
  10. On the other side of fake news, there are journalists who have integrity. Lara Logan is the kind of journalist we would all do well to follow. There are others like her, too. But just a few left in the mainstream corporate media, which has proven to be on he side of evil over and over and over. Michael
  11. Measles is rarely harmful. In my childhood days every kid got measles. I got it, and I'm here to say it meant staying in bed with the curtains drawn. I haven't looked into the measles vaccine but considering the corruption being revealed in the vaccine industry it's worth considering that the measles vaccine might, statistically, be more harmful than the disease itself. But set that aside. No vaccine should be forced on anyone, or on anyone's children. All vaccines have risks. Whether to have them or not is a decision that ought to be left to the parents. One attorney who is fighting in this battle is Patricia Flynn , who specializes in religious exemptions to vaccination. She describes what she has had to put up with in this interview she gave on the Lew Rockwell Show in 2012.
  12. Because I'm a moron, of course. (I was being naughty. It was a smile of bemusement; the emoji doesn't capture the nuance, though.)
  13. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid, Amy Farrah Fowler and let's leave it at that.
  14. Why did you give a smile like to the post by Peter you were quoting? Ellen
  15. Those arguments would hold water unless we have already transitioned to a post legal society. Which may be the case , we now hold political prisoners and a chief Executive that openly/ overtly promotes, taking unconstitutional actions.
  16. Marc, Marc , Marc if you insist on this line of attack , it will eventually lead to discussions about how subconsciously you identified Bill and Hillary as later instantiations of Alan and Monica Quartermaine.
  17. Thanks Marc. She brings up some key points from the legal and insurance end that just might make an employer halt their mandates. Peter Catherine Austin Fitts wrote: “My approach would be to demand from the [company or agency mandating the vaccine] to specify who is legally liable, the employer or the vaccine maker or both, and how that relates to my health insurance, my disability insurance and my life insurance as well as workman’s comp. I would always work the money angle.” “I would file a case to demand FDA give clear guidance for employers for the informed consent required to explain who has liability for adverse events and related immunosuppression and toxicity and death, in terms of [vaccine] manufacturer, health care person administering the injection, employer, health care insurance, workman’s compensation, disability insurance, job protection and benefits, life insurance.” “Before I decide whether to take the vaccine, I need to know how lability for potential injury works. Who would be legally liable? What about insurance coverage and payouts? I need all this spelled out…”
  18. Thunberg Singing and Dancing Climate Change This one hit a new level of creepy. It is just plain awful. CRINGE: Greta Thunberg Turns to Singing and Dancing to Push Global Warming Agenda (VIDEO) WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM If angry speeches won’t do it, maybe a little song and dance will help? Angry Greta Thunberg turned to singing and dancing this weekend to help push her global warming agenda. The young Swedish teen... The video: Thunberg can't sing, which is why there is another dude with her to carry the tune. And her dancing is spastic. Granted, she's autistic. But at this level of spectacle, I just don't feel any empathy for her. Coughing into the mic? Come on... And listen to the crowd screaming its approval... I stand in awe before the power of propaganda to turn shit into a pop celebrity... Michael
  19. This is not peculiar to the new host, but that the show has regularly featured Rand-themed questions.
  20. I would strongly recommend Catherine Austin Fitts to anyone,but respectfully Peter, I would love to hear your insight on her. She explains the current play in laymans terms ( not calling you a layman ) and she is absolutely brilliant.
  21. I think I saw her yesterday while watching Curb your Enthusiasm
  22. "Not a clue." An honest answer, at least, since this person has previously admitted to ignoring counter-claims and evidence presented to him. And yet, he proceeds to answer as if he did: "And think about this: how far away from Rand has your mind shifted? " This is an argument from intimidation, presented with no justification. "...stay away from the online tabloids." Another shameful attempt at package-dealing; this argument treats all dissent from the official narrative as "tabloid", when, in fact, there have been many arguments presented here against the official narrative from what would be considered respectable scientists and doctors who were a part of that narrative, including Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology used with the Covid shots: 'Single most qualified' mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video NEWS.YAHOO.COM The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns... Now, Dr. Malone is not some "holistic healer" with a degree in feng shue from the University of Tijuana: He's the INVENTOR of the mRNA tech used in the vaccines. He's not even saying don't take the shot: So, then, why ignore him and attempt to shut down debate? Well... This is not posted for the benefit of those saying "stay away from tabloids", mind you, since they have admitted that they don't even read the information presented ("lalala, I cant hear you!, morons, lalala!" he said, with fingers in his ears) , so they are in no position to judge whether or not others have done their due diligence, let alone actually address any of the arguments and information themselves. They also ignore the evidence of people recovering from Covid due to the use of alternatives to the shots, like HCQ and Ivermectin, which have a long history of use already and are demonstrated to be safer. To top it off, they ignore the lack of transparency on behalf of the establishment (not to mention even the proven collusion of Fauci with China, re the "gain of function research",and that the same establishment is telling your trusted doctor what to tell you) and that, rather than address the arguments and counter-evidence, they opt for censorship and de-platforming and intimidation to silence dissent. Because of these evasions, such people are easily dismissed from the argument. But it is helpful to look at what's happening here as a microcosm of the situation at large. Dismissing counter-evidence and dissent, not based on the facts of the argument, but because it strays from the official narrative reminds me of an excerpt from The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ronald Merrill: "...this is inadequate; it refutes the arguer, perhaps, but no the argument." And I anticipate the response that one is permitted to dismiss the counter-arguments based on some "Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary assertion." But, as Robert Campbell has pointed out, in his essay on the subject, the problem with that is, in order to determine whether or not an argument is arbitrary, one has to actually look at the evidence first. Now, if it were proven that the arguments in this case were arbitrary, then there would be more justification, but that's something that the naysayers have not done, and have self-admittedly refused to do, to refuse to even look at the evidence, let alone assess it rationally and objectively. But because they have not only refused to look at counter-arguments and evidence, as some so eagerly admit, with a sense of pride, but have also engaged in arguments from intimidation, I don't think they're even attempting to pull an "arbitrary assertion" line of defense. No, what has been demonstrated is more of what Rand wrote about in "Extremism, or the Art of Smearing". Just as the "moderates" attempted to lump together the John Birch Society with the Communist Party and the Klu Klux Klan, so does the equation of all current critics of the official medical narrative with "tabloids" and such. Such package-dealing is an attempt to by bypass addressing the arguments and counter-evidence by false association, and it is shameful, as shameful as the attempt to justify one's shortcomings in this debate by using the "argument of intimidation" of "you guys aren't being Objectivists" (while ignoring Rand's own opposition to forced vaccinations, oddly enough), when it's clear that the one abandoning reason and objectivity is the one who boasts of evading the facts and evidence presented by counter-arguments to the mainstream, while engaging in "arguments from intimidation", "package-dealing", and "the art of smearing." (And, most tellingly, when on the ropes, defends his inability to defend his argument with kindergarten-level ad-hominem of the following: ("you're a moron" and "epistemological duh-duh"... a step above "you're a doody-head", I suppose, but not by much...) And who else does that? The sham trials of the "kangaroo courts" employed by dictatorships. Anyway...let this be a teachable moment. The moral of the story: "Friends don't let friends be an enabler of sham trials and kangaroo courts and dictatorships." #themoreyouknow
  1. Load more activity