Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/22/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 2 points
    Just like in Communist China. Tell me again that Google is a decent, rights-bearing private company, Statist. Google, FBI, bomb squad airing anti-Red Flag laws advertisement ... https://truepundit.com/video-police-bomb-squad-there-were-snipers-on-the-rooftops/ “San Francisco Police, its bomb squad and the FBI surrounded the residence of Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies, just hours before he was scheduled to provide evidence to the Justice Department detailing how the tech giant has been manipulating its algorithms to promote an anti-Trump agenda and censor Conservatives on Google and YouTube.”
  3. 2 points
    LOL. Look at the amount of verbiage you produced when I didn't even cite a passage. What would I be in for if I did? Ellen btw, I haven't read any further than the sentence I quoted, just taken a quick glance. I truly don't have time for this stuff, much as literature interests me. I was merely letting Jon know that there are people who don't find Rand's calling the book "a poem" (loosely speaking) odd.
  4. 2 points
    I could, abundant passages, like approximately the whole book. But I don't have the time, and if I did have the time, I wouldn't want to spend it on so frustrating a proceeding - way worse than trying to explain a joke Ellen
  5. 2 points
    "Please, never use the word Objectivist associated with yourself, because you cannot be..." Directed at "the apologists for Donald Trump". The "sell-outs". First, he draws an equivalence between the Conservatives and the Left; the "nuttiness" of each. (Which is like comparing apples to - I don't know what). Then, he slams anyone who supports Trump over the Left. In other words: Brook is "an apologist" for the Left. And does not see his own self-contradiction. This is an unwarranted and heavy-handed interference in others' choices. Besides, he's wrong.
  6. 1 point
    The pupil has not demonstrated an understanding of “tiresome reading suggestion #34.” So much for in his own words. Worst fake professor ever. Cartman is a better fake cop. Cartman fakes having been in ‘Nam better than this.
  7. 1 point
    You seem to be yearning for a world that isn't there and never was there--where what's on the ostensible surface matches what's below. --Brant
  8. 1 point
    If Epstein were murdered, with the stage subsequently set to make it look like a suicide by hanging, the perpetrators would have made it appear it was an accidental hanging, specifically a case of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Because reasons. But they didn’t, so it wasn’t a murder. QED. Moron or lunatic? http://sorbusaucuparius.blogspot.com/2012/08/umberto-ecos-four-types-of-idiot.html Hint: no reference (above) to the Templars. But seriously, if evidence of a struggle emerges, such as injuries to the hands, fingernails etc, then the probability space will have to be reallocated. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Geoghan were murdered in prison, but neither death was confused with suicide. As it is, suicide is the most likely explanation for the facts we have.
  9. 1 point
    https://images.app.goo.gl/mcu6uuSnxqmcAvJ1A
  10. 1 point
    One could probably make a lot of money on short trades based on trump tweets. Ride em down and ride em back up.
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus! I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting! Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is? J
  13. 1 point
    Can you perhaps point to a specific moment when this idea of "equality before God" became important in Christian thought? Because for most of Christianity's history, the religion was considered to be perfectly consistent with absolute monarchy. Christian theology was used to justify the Divine Right Of Kings. Where would you suggest the "turning point" is?
  14. 1 point
    We're at war with CNN and other such media and the guy got in a good shot. Why are we at war with them? They're at war with us, and have been for decades. It's the good guys starting to shoot back. --Brant N0 MERCY!!!!
  15. 1 point
    A poem is where you find it. --Brant
  16. 1 point
    From the poetically-prosaic Anthem, by way of the Haikus From Books blog.
  17. 1 point
    TG, No biggie. I just think Anthem would need to show things like heroic couplets or other poetry-related elements for me to put it in that category. (Fun fact that is neither here nor there. David Mamet writes his stuff in iambic pentameter. That's right. Glengarry Glen Ross, Wag the Dog, Oleanna, Sexual Perversity in Chicago, The Verdict, Hoffa, etc. are all in iambic pentameter. At least the plays are. I did his online masterclass in writing and I'm pretty sure he said his screenplays are, too. But don't quote me on that until I do the course again. I've tried writing in iambic pentameter in modern English and it's irritating. I'm gonna learn it, though.) Michael
  18. 1 point
    TG, That is a brilliant book. I've read it. And it was one of the nicest surprises I ever got out of a pop culture book (which ended up not being so pop ). McCloud goes into some pretty deep philosophy. I remember buying several books he recommended. Hell, I even got into a bit of Marshall McLuhan because of him. Michael
  19. 1 point
    Interesting take, and quite plausible (even if I don't think it has to be either/or regarding the epic poem argument). This is not unlike what happens in comic books/sequential art. Those interested in pursuing this line of thought may be interested in a book called UNDERSTANDING COMICS: THE INVISIBLE ART by Scott McCloud. He examines how comic book artists and animators "draw in the reader" (pun intended) in how they balance realism and more abstract styles. The more detailed, the more distance the reader becomes, and the more abstract or "cartoony", the more the reader/viewer can project themselves into the character or story. Sounds very similar to what Michael is getting at, here; even talks about the child vs. adult modes of perception. (And its medium is its message; it's done in a comic-book format. But don't let that fool you, it's very sophisticated in its approach.)
  20. 1 point
    He's got a point. Day 2 of "Everyone Has A 'Theory' Week." -- Forensic Nose Patrol to the fore with the OL delegation! This was supposed to be Infrastructure Week, but hey. Good luck to all contestants.
  21. 1 point
    I said sandwich and TG ran with it. You’re not missing anything, I don’t think. TG took sandwich and jumped to that “Manwich is a meal” ad.
  22. 1 point
    TG is saying that it is pitiful how The Manwich Co. found poetry in a sandwich while you cannot, in Anthem. 😆😆😆
  23. 1 point
    For the sake of clarity, President Trump retweeted it. He included the video. Here is the original. To the reader, watch the video. It's funny as hell and when you add that President Trump retweeted it, it's even more hilarious. LOl... Michael
  24. 1 point
    The President posted this today: Donald J. Trump Retweeted https://mobile.twitter.com/w_terrence Died of SUICIDE on 24/7 SUICIDE WATCH ? Yeah right! How does that happen #JefferyEpstein had information on Bill Clinton & now he’s dead I see #TrumpBodyCount trending but we know who did this! RT if you’re not Surprised #EpsteinSuicide #ClintonBodyCount #ClintonCrimeFamily 2:04 1.3M views 12:26 PM · Aug 10, 2019
  25. 1 point
    That's because I was originally exercising poetic license in my quotation... "Oh....fudddddggeee..." (Only he didn't say "fudge"...)
  26. 1 point
    Actually, Ralphie got an A + + + + + + + +
  27. 1 point
    "What I want is a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock... "and this thing which tells time." Wow, that's great. "I think that everybody should have a Red Ryder BB gun. "They're very good for Christmas. "I don't think that a football's a very good Christmas present." Oh, rarely had the words poured from my pencil with such feverish fluidity. Poetry! Sheer poetry! A+ for Ralphie! A + + + + + + + !!!!!
  28. 1 point
    You can't make me stick to that belief, though. You can't! You can't! I didn't know what i believed when I wrote that and I still don't know what I believe about this and I only said "Her poem" in respect to what its creator herself calls it, so you can't pin anything on me here! Not anything!! 😀
  29. 1 point
    Jon, OK. When writing, I believed you (and others) believe that. Now you have asserted it is poetry. So you do believe it. You do! You do! Michael
  30. 1 point
    Nathaniel Branden in "Who is Ayn Rand" (p.92):
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    Jonathan, If you ever change that, I will fall out with you. I can't think of Jonathan being Jonathan unless he is hanging someone with their own rope. Michael
  34. 1 point
    That house they repaired to might have been inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, a picture of which appeared on the cover of Time magazine. I toured it in 1973. --Brant
  35. 1 point
    Jonathan, That's one hell of a frame. I seriously doubt Rand meant that Roark was excited to be working for the government. Thank God Oliver Stone never got to do a second version of The Fountainhead because that is exactly what he intended to change Roark into (designing public parks and other government projects as his main occupation). Michael
  36. 1 point
    Jonathan, Man do we get different messages from The Fountainhead. To me, this is a book about the spiritual component of the prime mover of humanity, "the ego is the fountainhead of human progress" kind of thing. I don't see the focus of the book as a discussion of differing tastes in architectural design or getting miffed--or getting even--for not being hired. The bad guys are the bad guys because they injure and/or kill the independent productive spirit in any and all manner they can and they demand this spirit as a sacrifice to them. The bad guys want to rule over people of independent productive spirit, not as trade, but as sheer ugly master-slave power. There is a character in practically all of Rand's fiction that is never talked about as a character, but it's there. This character is society, whether government or the culture. And this character is almost always the villain in Rand's works. So, to me, seeing Roark's actions from a legalistic point of view as if we were talking about today's context misses the point. It would be like an individual villain in a story beating the crap out of the hero a few times, then the hero comes across the villain later where the villain can still harm him and the hero refuses to call him out for a fight or whop him real hard because said hero doesn't believe in initiation of force. The Fountainhead, to me, is fundamentally a novel about a fight, not a novel about trade and best business practices. This is not a novel about how an individual can fit into society. It's a novel about how an individual can stand up to a master-slave society and force it to change where he is no longer the slave. I agree with you about fraud and force and all that, but in this context, a master-slave context, those are moral actions. In normal society, they are immoral. In other words, is it fraud for a slave to deceive his master? Is it initiation of force for a slave to destroy his master's property, especially if the slave built it? In other words, once slavery is accepted as the moral standard, individual rights are out the window, except for the master. That's a double standard. Added to that, Roark was not the master in the book. Roark refused to obey his master. He refused to even acknowledge his master as his master. And if it took blowing up a building to make that clear, he blew up a building. That was Rand's point to me. Slaves can't do that. Only masters can. Or free individuals in a free society. Saying a society is free and having freedom in society are two very different things. It's pretty clear, at least to me, what the options are in a villain society. Michael
  37. 1 point
    You'we just a wacist Twump apowogist, and a wascawwy wabbit, so I expected you to tawk twash about the hewowic Bwook. J
  38. 1 point
    I don't see why. RBG could be spending almost all of her time at home with no congress to speak of with other justices with her staff doing all the work, the idea being to outlast Trump. And just maybe her body is in the freezer laid out in the right posture for the after the election funeral. --Brant "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
  39. 1 point
    Woo hoo! The sticky one from the Deep State finally leaves. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Are we still talking about the RBG doppelgänger? I'm only claiming that the "Russian Interference" narrative is/was plausible, in comparison to the RBG story, as presented on this thread, which I call Batshit Crazy. In other words, utterly implausible.
  41. 1 point
    Would you all mind choosing a different word than "artifact"? Thanks, J
  42. 1 point
    "Knowing" the story in my head is the essence of psychologizing. The discussion is about conspiracy theories, in this case the theory that the photo that we've been discussing was faked, to bring that old woman in it, who is supposed to be dead. The funny thing is that I hadn't realized that you had put those circles on the picture, to alert us on a supposedly missing shadow, as evidence of tampering. My impression was that you'd copied that photo with circles and all from some conspiracy site. Apart from my reaction, Mark and Anthony also dismissed that "shadow" argument. You then brought up new arguments: 1. The walking people seemed to be "out of focus", in contrast to the standing and sitting people. I pointed out (and Anthony also implied) that that fuzziness was nothing but the motion blur of moving people. 2. Then your next argument for tampering was that the fuzziness should only be on the backside of the walking person, and not on the front. I showed you why this notion is incorrect. 3. Your next argument was about the statue, the "white holes" between statue and shadow. I pointed out that this is a common effect of (often automatic) sharpening of the image. Further you asked where the mouth was. I replied that it was covered by a beard. 4. Then you tried to ridicule the picture of the statue, that it didn't have a real beard. I replied that I didn't see anything wrong in that part of the photo, other than that the statue was overexposed and therefore details were washed out. Anyway, I found a different photo of that scene, this time with considerably better resolution. The statue is obviously the same as on the other photo, only with more detail. You can discern mouth, ear, beard and hair, and these correspond clearly with what the fuzzier image shows. Due to overexposure it is still washed out, but I think nobody will think this has (also?) been tampered with. If I'm prejudiced, then my prejudice is rationality, common sense and respect for reality (omg, now I sound like a real Objectivist). You never disputed any of my refutations of your evidence of tampering, but only came up with again another argument. What is your subtext, or don't you have one? Is the idea that these images are perhaps not tampered with really anathema? Because you once were sure that it had been tampered with?
  43. 1 point
    The reasons given for the video being fake aren't convincing. There's room between the coffin and the people standing behind it for people to walk through, and the rope barrier doesn't extend all the way back to prevent them from entering. As for where the people came from, the camera angle doesn't include the entire room so they could have come from off camera. Also, something that moves transversely to a camera that doesn't tilt to follow it always appears blurred in a single frame. It's worth pointing out these erroneous allegations of fakeness because there really are some fakes out there and we don't want the waters muddied by cranks. A certainly fake video is the one of the alleged New Zealand Christchurch mosque shooting, the video the government made it a crime to distribute.
  44. 1 point
    Thank you. And right back at you. J
  45. 1 point
    However, immunization does produce benefits. How many people are paralyzed with polio this days. Hardly any. When I was a kid, Summer time used to be Polio Hell. I was forbidden by my parents to go to public swimming pools and discourage from going to the movies. And almost everyone knew someone, or had a relative that was crippled by the disease. So a statistical analysis IS appropriate. If the odds of harm by NOT having the immunization, exceed the odds of harm BY having the immunization one should be immunized. An interesting thing happened with regard to smallpox. It turned out that more people were getting a smallpox related disease from the immunization than those is in unimmunized population were getting smallpox. So smallpox shots were eliminated. The disease simply ceased to exist in advanced countries like the U.S. But the anti-immunization crackpots do not have a valid statistical argument for their position. They simply believe that immunization causes autism. They are wrong. Almost all indication are that the various types of autism are genetically conditioned. Studies show that it runs in families. But this, right now, is a suspicion, not a proven fact. One thing we do know at this point, immunization as such does NOT cause autism. The Anti-Vac crew are crackpots.
  46. 1 point
    It isn't rational to just dismiss "some paper" as the product of those awful scientists. The Danish study I referenced followed all children born in Denmark in the period January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1998, a total of 537,303 children followed for a total of 2,129,864 person-years. Read the paper to see how careful this study was set up, how painstakingly and meticulously all kinds of possible factors were taken into account. If you think you can just dismiss the study, you should point out the errors therein. Follow also the references in that study to see the results of other studies that come to the same conclusion. As I said before, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a common fallacy. With many millions of people it is statistically unavoidable that there will be "remarkable" coincidences. How impressive these might seem, in themselves they don't prove anything. Therefore you need large and carefully designed scientific studies, not a collection of anecdotes. In such cases I trust only scientific data. Not that these are automatically correct (far from it!), but at least I have some possibility to check the accuracy and the soundness of the methods used.
  47. 1 point
    Let's put it this way: The question boils down to answering: Is it possible to be an Objectivist and not be absolutely, 100% consistent with each and every consequence of Objectivism? I think that the answer to that is . . . obviously, yes it is possible (and hence, no - not an oxymoron). Otherwise, anybody who thinks of themselves as an objectivist, but then changes their mind on learning something new which contradicts something they had thought earlier, either wasn't an Objectivist before or isn't after. The only way around this that I see is to maintain that there is a short list of essentials without which one is not an Objectivist. If so, what is that short list, and on what is that list based? When Rand did the "standing on one foot" characterization of her philosophy, she didn't explicitly mention atheism. Bill P Bill, I strongly disagree with your statement of what the question boils down to. It is not whether, to be an Objectivist, one must accept each and every consequence of its basic principles claimed by Rand. It is whether one can be an Objectivist while denying its most fundamental principle. And its most fundamental, principle is the absolutism of reason. Rand wrote: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. . . . This -- the supremacy of reason -- was, is and will be the primary concern of my work and the essence of Objectivism." Religion -- any religion--requires a belief in the supernatural, in a realm unknowable by reason. In The Art of Living Consciously, Nathaniel Branden defines mysticism as follows: "Mysticism is the claim that there are aspects of existence that can be known by means of a unique cognitive faculty whose judgments are above the authority of sensory observation and reason." One does not have to accept the idea that a woman should not be president of the United States to be an Objectivist; one may quarrel with many of the concepts that Rand claimed logically followed from her basic principles and still be an Objectivist. But just as one cannot, for instance, claim to be a Christian while denying the existence of God -- one cannot claim to be an Objectivist while denying the absolutism of reason. And -- not incidentally -- when Rand characterized her philosoophy while standing on one foot, it is true she did not mention atheism, but she most certainly named the absolutism of reason as essential to her philosophy. Her rejection of theism was implicit in that statement. Barbara
  48. 0 points
    This looks like an atomic bomb went off early/by accident at a Russian test site.
  49. 0 points
    Still not convinced. Seems you’re pretty desperate to interact with me. But I don’t want to interact with you. Got the hint yet? Seriously, you need help. You actually believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been dead for over 5 months? https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16963-epitome-of-the-collectivist-soul/?do=findComment&comment=288204 Replaced by an imperfect look-alike? Lay off the guano.
  50. 0 points
    Merlin, Your own words. (sigh...) I tried to discuss the ideas, but you're just too smart for me... My problem is my limited capacity to understand the grandeur of intellectual heights you achieve... Michael