Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/21/2019 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  2. 2 points
    The editor of The Objective Standard, a magazine affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, has finally responded to the revelations in ARI Watch’s exposé “Who is Carl Barney?" about ARI’s largest donor. ARI Watch reviews that response in a new article Barney Tells His Story. You can understand it by itself because it quotes the TOS article.
  3. 2 points
    The Perfect Storm for a VACCINE HOLOCAUST is Now Here video, 36 minutes -- Mike Adams https://www.brighteon.com/8879b5af-59b3-4ed3-98e6-f9037f22ade5
  4. 2 points
    The Real Roots of the Internet and Social Media The following video from Corbett is quite an education. You can get the transcript and sources here: Episode 359 – The Secrets of Silicon Valley: What Big Tech Doesn’t Want You to Know If you want to know why the claim is bogus that big tech companies are private companies, therefore they should be able to freely censor whoever they please over political preference, take a look at this video. Would one ever make political preference a condition for civil service or joining the armed forces? Of course not. There is a fact that is becoming clearer and clearer to the public as time goes on. Big Tech is Big Government in the guise of private companies. But the big tech companies were and still are funded in great part by the government. And they never strayed from their real purpose, covert surveillance and influence of people in foreign lands--and ditto for American citizens. From that lens, a hell of a lot of mysterious happenings start making sense. Michael
  5. 2 points
    Michael, What you say about Q is along the lines I've been thinking, too. Sometimes Q is right, sometimes wrong, but always Q gets people questioning and poking and prying. William's supercilious negativity was what first aroused my interest. William's effective as a reverse indicator. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    I haven't read the article , so I don't know who is shilling for whom. But whenever I hear about conspiracy theories relating to tech companies becoming seemingly tech behemoths it makes me wonder whether the behemothing was orchestrated by other than market forces. Especially things tech/social/media. I get there can be tons of money chasing info /data the sellers can take advantage of for marketing and such. It would be hard to direct all that spending toward mining that data if it were spread out far and wide, fortunately the behemoths aggregate a lot of it and fortunately since a large majority of everyone uses the behemoths we are pretty comfortable using them . It's odd there is Coke and Pepsi but no Google and .., or YouTube and .., no? I get Carnegie built US Steel , but he acquired and built his way to that, bought other independent companies , integrated supply chains ect. US internet behemoths feel like they sprang from nothing to everything , did Facebook ever experience a lack of servers that limited their capacity ? Or YouTube? Did they acquire others' capacities ? How much investment is/was needed for the hardware ? I am completely ignorant of the cost structure for the industry , but I assume the price of raw computing power has decreased in at least the last decade, though I doubt Mom or Pop would be able to out compete the existing titans just on the hardware costs alone. But as I said I'm ignorant of the cost structure and perhaps that just feeds my bias toward sympathy for the idea that Big Brother helped to make sure all the lovely data and control bottlenecks seem to be limited to a few players.
  7. 2 points
    She knows shit about predators. --Brant been there, done that, smack, smack, smack if humans weren't predators, we'd have eyes on the sides of our heads
  8. 2 points
    Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop. Just to let you know: I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days. I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow. Oh, such fun. Ellen
  9. 1 point
    Lesson of the day kids! If you are bullied just remember and repeat after Grandpa Jon. “You deserve it!”
  10. 1 point
    Oh, goodie. The symbolism that goes all the way back to Babylonia. (It does go all the way back at least that far.) Ellen
  11. 1 point
    "How a 'slick talker' lobbyist boosted the false Seth Rich murder conspiracy — before getting shot himself" See also for details: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conspiracyland/id1471037693 Sister Perpetua of the Holy Smokes.
  12. 1 point
    William's power is only from our engagement of him. --Brant
  13. 1 point
    Disrupting How Progressivism Works in America Regular Progressivism as a process of political change in America (baby steps) rarely fails, but it's slow. As shown below, there is a tonic. The jig can get blown when a Black Swan (say, a wildcard like President Trump) disrupts the ongoing progress of the ideological-political conveyor belt. The result is that, in panic, the "Progressives" who are progressing a specific agenda will freak and show their cards way too early. It's the paranoia of a liar who loses the attention of his target and thinks that means he's been busted. Here's how it works. 1. The Progressives decide on an unpopular position they want to ram down the throats of everyone, which means they get the power to do that and others not only have to take it, they have to pay for it. For example, let's say they wanted the US government to pay for the health care of illegal aliens. They know few people want that, so they first have to put in a foundation and dress it up to make it sound reasonable, even the opposite. Then, from a position of power, present the foundation to the public. President Obama did this with Obamacare. 2. After their "foundation ploy" is out in the open, they fish for displays by the opposition--they actually goad the opposition to get reactions. That way they can bash the opposition with trigger words/phrases and accusations about violating procedures of decency, yada yada yada--and they have prepared all this in advance. For example, in September 2009, Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina gave President Obama a gift when he yelled out in Congress, "You lie!" to Obama's claim that no health care benefits would be given to illegal aliens. Obama had been goading the opposition in his speech to the joint session of Congress and practically daring anyone from the opposition to say anything. Just listen to the booing-like reactions every time he said the opposition was getting it all wrong. Obama's smirk after Wilson yelled that "you lie" comment said it all, though. You can almost see him think, Ha! That worked better than I expected. Then he recovered his "serious" demeanor and went on to claim that no federal funds would pay for abortions (but that's a different issue he was ramming down people's throat using this same system, double dipping so to speak). In this post, I will only stay with the issue of illegal aliens getting US taxes in the form of free health care for the sake of making the process very easy to understand. 2. KABOOM! See the headlines at the time. The condescension and tut-tut-tutting from Progressives was as thick as a ton of cowpiles. The Progressives lived off the fallout (to that and the general wave it created) without any serious pushback for several years. Hell, ripples even extended into the next administration when McCain stopped Obamacare from being repealed in the Senate. 3. But President Trump happened, their Queen designate was not crowned, and the Progressives not only lost their power, they lost their bearings. I don't need to illustrate that. We all know what happened. The result is that their timing on the true intended outcomes of their different policy agendas went seriously haywire and they have been running around in circles ever since. 4. Now they have a shot to regain their power with another election, but they have lost all sense of how their own system works policy-wise, in other words, it is grounded on selling a bait-and-switch through patience, not hysteria or brute force. (Apropos, brute force is not out of the picture, though. It only comes in at the end if they get real power, not "checked and balanced" power. Then they start the mass killings few of them, only the insiders, realize is coming. See the several major leftie nations where mass graves exist as examples.) The video below is a perfect example of what happens when someone disrupts the Progressive process in a major way. Don't forget, Obama claimed there is no way the US will pay for the health care of illegal aliens, right? Just look. Every goddam one of those Democrats on the first night of the primary debates for the 2020 election raised their hand saying they wanted illegal aliens to get US taxes in the form of free health care. The truth is, even for Obama back then, that is what they wanted all along. The rest was bait. But they screwed up. They just gave President Trump and other Republicans running in 2020 a hell of an image for campaign ads. All because they lost their marbles when someone threw a monkeywrench in the gears of the conveyor belt they were on. They were doing the long con and got stalled by an unexpected event. Now, in panic, thinking they've been busted anyway, they are unmasking themselves on the long con thinking this is how they are going to get their power back. Jeez... Talk about discombobulated... I thought they were better as opponents... The conclusion? We need more Black Swans. We need more disruptive, but productive, people like President Trump. The Progressives will not stop building sandcastles of worship to lousy gods to mold with cement, but a good strong wave before the cement dries collapses them every time. Michael
  14. 1 point
    How many deaths can be laid on l B Johnson and Robt MacN for how they did the Vietnam War? I count five million plus or minus a million. This includes the Cambodian communist generated genocide. Now these are part of various results. lBJ and Abraham Lincoln were smart men deluded into righteousness. Woodrow Wilson did by far the most damage. No prof. should even be elected President. But the Communists and the Nazis were and are pure murdering evil. We are surrounded today by Communists in academia, the media and big Corp. media, so called msm. Most don't know who they really represent and/or are.--If they aren't stupid they aren't educated. Never mind evil. The evil is in the rest of us for not rousting them out. Then the rest of ID's salvation is hunting them down. --Brant you can vote yourself intso fascism but then you'll have to shoot yourself out (not original by me)
  15. 1 point
    Yes, thank you MSK for the book recommendation. ( I was hoping my implicit laziness would be enough to prod you into foregoing a due chastisement and giving up some goods : ) ) e-luddites unite !
  16. 1 point
    T, You can say that again. But I'll let you dig into the government-corporation lovemaking on your own. There's plenty of stuff around. Let's just say that without government protections, funding and resources like satellites and subsidized power (in addition to way too much stuff to list here), Google would not be the Google behemoth it is today. Here's a 2018 book for ya': Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy by George Gilder. Gilder is the guy who correctly predicted a bunch of important stuff about big tech and even the Internet back during the television years. And he's been right over and over since. You might be interested to know that the view of human nature of the Google folks is essentially Marxist (and, by extension, this applies to other big tech folks as well, but not as much as with Google). I'm going to push the bounds of fair use and provide some relevant quotes from Gilder's book. Gilder continues in the quote below. The reason I separated the passage (it continues from the previous one) is that, although it does not deal specifically with Marx, it shows how the Marxist model inevitably leads to "walled gardens" and "company stores" with arbitrary market practices, both of which need a massive security system in place for protection. He also shows the bait and switch of "free" software in this Marxist model. The free not only serves as the bait, it isolates Google from complying with many legal business requirements. The help on the way that Gilder talks about is blockchain and cryptocurrency. In the next chapter, Gilder gives an explanation of the "free" as it pertains to both philosophy and practice. Marx is not mentioned, but the mechanistic view of human nature (people as robots that can be programmed) inherent in Marxism is clear. Don't forget, whenever we talk about Marx, we already know the fundamental issue is power over the individual (collectivism). If you want to know all about the data centers, the subsidized electrical power Google uses (the Dalles Dam between Klickitat, Washington, and Wasco, Oregon) and so on, this book will give you all the information you need. For a relatively quick and general overview of Gilder's thinking about Google, I can't recommend highly enough the following video. If you watch it, in less than one hour you will know vastly more about Google than most of the "experts" around you. He even goes into the Marxist thing (from a different and more limited view, but still he covers it). Gilder doesn't cover Google's Darpa and Pentagon stuff, Google's incestuous relationship with the former Obama administration (a crapload of Google's employees got hired by Obama and a crapload of Obama folks got hired by Google--all at the same time), and so on, but I think Gilder's perspective for the long run is more important than Google's icky politics. Just because I am against the way Google wants to rule over everyone, that doesn't mean those Google dudes are stupid. On the contrary, they are brilliant. Imagine if, one day, they ever became committed--for real--to not being evil... Michael
  17. 1 point
    Brant, Notice that, didja? I bet you're not the only one... Michael
  18. 1 point
    Merlin, You really are a shill for Big Brother. I have often wondered if your own money is tied up with government protection schemes. When I first saw that side of you during the Trump election, that you loved the cockeyed crony foreign trade agreements like NAFTA, TPP, etc., and called those things "free trade" while insulting those who think crony arrangements are not "free," I tuned out. But, you have a right to worship at the feet of any Big Brother you wish. Constant snark does not work at convincing others, though, so I would work on my persuasion skills if that is your intent. If it's just the will to snark, do carry on... I'm not going to waste time taking apart your misdirections. Man, did you come out of the gate hungry for winning some fight or other. It's kind of comical. Especially since, in a few of your points, it looks like you didn't even watch the video as they inaccurately describe what's in it. I've seen you do this kind of start-with-bluster-and-bloviating stuff before and all it does is result a lot of posts containing snark and very little that is substantive. I presume you have presented your best shot at taking me down a peg or two, showing the world your awesomeness, uncovering my dupedness for all to see, yada yada yada, and want to get to the good stuff, the snark, but I just don't have a lot of time for constant snark, so I prefer to let the reader decide. Let interested readers watch the video, let them look up your facts, and let them decide which negate which, if any. (In fact, I'm not of the belief that just because so-and-so did not cover something, even a list of things, that debunks what he did discuss and makes you the savior of mankind, dispatching enemies left and right. ) On a happier note, I already have The Innovators (and several books by Isaacson, none of which I have yet read). Even though I haven't yet had time to get into it, that, and all his books, are all on my to-read list. I want to read his book on Steve Jobs first since I want to introduce myself to Isaacson's work with that one. Also, I will look into The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. It looks interesting, but from the Amazon description and a few reader comments, it sure seems to sing the praises of Big Brother. In other words, Big Brother does market things like market innovation because the market is simply unqualified to do it on its own. And if anyone thinks differently, you will be debunked (see the book's very title ). Besides, the market cannot exist without government technocrats running it. (Any ideas on who should be running those things and ruling over the market. Merlin? Like, maybe, you? Or a bud of yours? ) All hail Big Brother! And may we debunk forever and ever, amen! Note to the reader, Merlin is plugging his blog. I not only don't mind, I encourage it. Please go there and read his stuff. He's very intelligent and gives great information and topics to think about. Also, he's much more snarky here than he is over there so, if you go there, you won't have to waste your time wading though his neurotic urges. Seriously, despite my criticisms, I recommend it. Michael
  19. 1 point
    MSK has been duped again ... big time. Corbett asserts that the roots of the Internet and social media are government applications and surveillance by government. 😄 There is something surely wrong with a narrative purported to explain the birth and growth of the Internet and social media that says nothing at all about: 1. The invention of transistors, Bell Labs, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain. 2. Arnold Beckman, who financially backed William Shockley and Shockley's company Fairchild Semiconductor. 3. How Shockley was a terrible manager, from whom the Gang of Eight bolted to start their own business. 4. Transistors were the foundation of semiconductors. 5. Two of the Gang of Eight were Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, who greatly advanced the practical use of transistors and semiconductors and were the founders of Intel. Noyce and Jack Kilby invented the first integrated circuits or microchips that helped launch the personal computer revolution. 6. IBM and Control Data, the titans of the mainframe era. 7. The PC revolution led by (a) Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Microsoft, and (b) Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Apple. 8. The development of browsers, especially Mosaic and Netscape, without which there was no need for Google's or any other search engine. 9. Advertising, except for one trivial mention. The lifeblood of Google and Facebook is and has been advertising. "Facebook made more than $40 billion in revenue in 2017, approximately 89 percent of which came from digital advertisements" (link). "From Q3 2017 to Q3 2018 ... advertising from Google websites has comprised a relatively consistent 86.78% of total company revenue" (link). Corbett's narrative also blunders big time as follows. 10. He gives nearly all credit for Silicon Valley to one man, Frederick Terman. Terman was a pretty minor character in the real history. There is a book titled Crystal Fire: The Invention of the Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age. Terman's name appears on 5 pages of Crystal Fire, a 352-page book. One of the 5 is in the Notes. Another is in the Index. That leaves only 3 pages in the main part. 11. Corbett's video asserts that Oracle gets 25% of its revenues from government. What about the other 75%? Duh! Oracle is huge in the business of information technology, especially databases, some of the software that controls the data of the information age. 12. Corbett's one mention of advertising is this: "The US government is not afraid of the Russians and their ability to “undermine American democracy” by purchasing thousands of dollars of advertising on Facebook." First, it is absurd to ignore all the other advertising on the Internet. Second, his assertion is absurd. Try telling that whopper to all the Democrats in the US government. 😄 13. The primary purpose of the Internet is not government applications and surveillance. It is communication. The purpose of ARPANET, prominent in Corbett's video, was communication -- email and file-sharing. If you believe the Internet is only about email and file-sharing, check your premises. 14. Facebook was conceived and first developed by Zuckerberg for social communication. If you believe his ulterior motive in Facebook's early years was a tool -- or now is -- for government control and surveillance, check your premises. 15. While the Internet does offer surveillance opportunities for other than advertisers, the major surveillance is for advertising. Sellers want data about computer (now also phone) users in order to sell the user something. That's where the money is and money talks. For anybody with a greater interest in reality than a far-fetched conspiracy theory, I recommend Crystal Fire and Walter Isaacson's The Innovators. I posted about the latter on my blog in April, 2019. Another book I read about the government and Silicon Valley is The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato. I also wrote about it on my blog between April 29 - May 4. She doesn't have a sinister view of government's role in Silicon Valley. Instead, she strives to give nearly all of the credit for Silicon Valley to the government.
  20. 1 point
    Just to be on record, ever since Project Veritas launched its report about Google, the video was removed from YouTube. I don't know if a reason was given by YouTube. But, in addition, the Project Veritas account was banned on Vimeo and Reddit for "hate." There is more, but those are the main ones. Michael
  21. 1 point
    Those statistics are reasonably sound. But what of the causes? There is a hypothesis which I moderately subscribe to , to wit, the mating customs of Ashkenazim in Europe put a high value on males who mastered the intricacies of the Babylonian Talmud and the very strict reasoning of the Scholars, Rabbis and Sages. These bright young fellows had their pick of the women in the villages and shtetils. The matchmakers (marriages were arranged to advantage the families of the women who paid a bride prices for a good husband) would often pair up the brilliant young Talmud-Bucher with the daughter of the richest man in the Shtetel. It turns out this was a breeding program to make intelligent children (although the mechanisms of human biological inheritance were unknown at this time). Now contrast this with how Catholics arranged things. The best and the brightest sons were encouraged to go into the Priesthood where their opportunities for biological mating were .... limited..... So the Catholics were taking half of the gene pool for intelligence out of circulation. There you have a crude and semi-plausible account for why the Ashkenazim were "so smart". Also for cultural reasons every Jewish male was encouraged to become as learned as he could in matters of Talmud and Torah. The logic of and about the Talmud (and logic there was) was a kind of hybrid between inferential logic and inductive logic. It was, at its root Bayesian reasoning. To become an accomplished Talmud scholar of repute required decades of study. Jews have traditionally put a high premium on "being smart" and practical! It is just the thing one needs to survive in a hostile or potentially hostile environment. So in a strange way, the anti-Semites promoted the breeding of super-smart Jews. One had to have one's wits firmly attached to survive in that environment. Breeding programs of other sorts have emerged in the Asiatic nations. China is renowned for turning out its share (and more than their share) of very smart people. Some thousands of years ago China was several light years ahead of Europe in both abstract thinking and practical engineering. China, which has dumped Lenin and Marx for good old practical reasons is in the process of reclaiming its eminent position in the world of ideas and technology. Japan has also done well and in the smaller Asiatic nations as wells as Japan and China the "tiger-moms" who push their son's unmercifully is a known phenomena. There is a shortage of women in the Asiatic nations (sons are preferred to daughters for cultural reasons) so the brightest and most ambitious males are more likely to "score" in the reproductive struggle and competition. And so it goes. A combination of genetics and culture, in some cases, is an effective breeding program for intelligence. Ba'al Chatzaf --- a descendant of Abraham, if not in the flesh, then certainly in the spirit.
  22. 1 point
    Michael, Nice, I see a tie-in there with what's going on now: a drawing is 'real' but not a real thing (it's a "representation" of what is real, or perhaps to be realized). That's what happens with words especially ones which hurt, and particularly online where you don't see the 'person' and physical reactions of one's respondents. So we get "sticks and stones .. but words will never hurt me". But they do, of course. To be kept in mind, certainly. The word-symbols i.o.w are unreal (abstract) and also 'real'. Goes for cyber-reality also . Keeping the connection is the trick. Like some of us wrt mechanical drawings who tend foremost to see the wheel- reality behind the representations, for whom wheel-drawings stand for the real thing, not e.g. a puzzle in geometry. Anyway, you got me on about something fascinating I've observed about different individuals. There was a 'literalness' about Rand, too - e.g. to her, visual art represented/recreates (as some artist's mind images it) the "real" - and should, or can only, be taken as such. As directly real as words, to her. Anyway thanks...
  23. 1 point
    Wow, you have been on a roll Jon. No prob, Ive been told worse.
  24. 1 point
    I don't agree that what Jon was doing is bullshit. I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter. Ellen
  25. 1 point
    This is a side issue, but correcting your report of what happened: No one came to see Tony's lack of ability at mechanical reasoning as anything but lack of ability - or Merlin's outright intellectual fraud (on Wikipedia) combined with ineptitude as anything but chicanery combined with ineptitude. Maybe what you're referring to is Jonathan's commenting - I think this was on a different thread (the "Where are you?" thread) - that he enjoyed seeing how the mathematically inclined approached the problem. But Jonathan knew from the start that he isn't good at math skills, though he's excellent at mechanical visualization. Ellen
  26. 1 point
    Jon, I think that Peter just looks at whatever pops up in the "Activity" feed and plops down his letter streams on whatever's handy. I think your impression that he's specifically following you results from statistical artifact. You happen to be doing a high percentage of the posting these days. I agree that Peter would be well advised to just not respond to your posts if he wants to be left alone by you But in a way, you're engaging in threat tactics: "Don't respond to me or I'll call you names." I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway: I do not want you off OL. Your posts are of much interest to me. Ellen
  27. 1 point
    Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong, Jules. Though his last few forays in big game hunting have been better. At some point Michael may even think we will be laughing together, though still "Friars Club roasting" each other. Who knows? Now back to me being his father figure . . .
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Transference [trans-fer´ens] in psychiatry, the unconscious tendency of a patient to assign to others in the present environment feelings and attitudes associated with significant persons in one's earlier life; especially, the patient's transfer to the therapist of feelings and attitudes associated with a parent or similar person from childhood. The feelings may be affectionate (positive transference), hostile (negative transference), or ambivalent. Sometimes the transference can be interpreted to help the patient understand childhood attitudes. end quote A person who transfers their personal feelings into an attack on another person, attributing what they are ashamed of, to that other person, is not a good characteristic and should not be condoned. Take each instance of name calling or slander and wonder, “Is that what they are really like?” Perhaps, Ellen Stuttle may be one person with an opinion on this, but anyone, please feel free to contribute. Peter
  30. 1 point
    That should get you a reprimand, but why bring up your sister? Now that is GI humor. You mentioned having a family. Is this how you treat them? This encounter clearly illustrates the difference between objective banter, argumentation, and what is clearly a destructive personal attack.
  31. 1 point
    If a person cusses or bullies in writing, what is the possibility that that is how they act in their personal life? That sounds harsh and a bit too personal but not if someone claims they have no control over their actions. Involuntary and volitional contradict each other. Peter
  32. 1 point
    I agree Michael. One other point about being civil. A person may involuntarily cuss "in person" when that is normal group speak. You can't go back and edit "What the "F"" to your Army buddies. But when writing you can edit yourself before sending. To claim otherwise, is not logical. When I engage anyone in conversation online and it is not a personal message, I look at the "Activity" list for guidance. That is when I engage or not. If a person had no activity I would not engage. That is not stalking. On another list Azrael Rand wrote: Let me ask this question? If Ayn Rand were alive today and was able to keep up with the scientific discoveries of the day as well as current events do you believe she would have amended her philosophy to be consistent with its original premise based on the feedback given to her by reality or do you believe she would have stayed the course even up until today. I choose to believe in the former which is one of the reasons I believe in the concept of Open Objectivism. end quote What would Ayn Rand think of someone cussing, accusing, name calling, and being uncivil? I don't need to answer because it is obvious. Another line of thinking about that quote may be the subject of another thread. If she were still alive and writing, what would Rand change or expand upon? Peter
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    To Michael and all others reading this. I’m thinking about taking another month off from communicating and supporting OL. I would hate to see such a wonderful site become a toxic waste dump. Are those posts conducive to living like an objectivist? Peter
  35. 1 point
    I went back to a few days (maybe two not counting today) and here is one opinion expressed. Can you figure out who said these things? Peter Hoping for a different outcome like the retard I say you are. . . . snap out of it. Now respond politely, as though that’s what I’m doing, ok? ‘Cause those are the rules of politeness in PeterLand. Or shut the fuck up with your sermons from now on. Deal? Fuck off pedophile. Fuck your light humor. I wasn’t hostile until after this shit from shithead-in-Chief. Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits such as yourself. How many coups, fucktard? Go fuck yourself, Peter, that's what happened in Dominican Republic.
  36. 1 point
    Hey Jon, I think this is excellently done. All the more cause to keep in mind that trust in someone else's conclusions, should not be assumed. They arrive, you know, from ones reasoned chain of concepts, induced from *many* particulars (and data and sources), and so are hard, almost impossible, to reproduce and communicate. Something to bear in mind, and that you touched on yourself. What looks glaringly obvious to you isn't so to another. And for good reason: all propositions made by others, one reads, must be passed through one's "smell test" - does this conform to reality as I know it, by *my* series of inductions and integrations (and comparisons and differentiations)? The independent-minded listener can't take all that in, purely on trust. For someone, me or Peter to display a healthy skepticism to your propositions, isn't an attack on "you". I do think from reading you you have made over-hasty conclusions, mostly pointing to conspiratorial, notorious figures who do disgusting things, and sure, some in underground groups - cults.. I find myself, still, naively shocked at what superficially 'moral, upstanding' people can do. I don't doubt events will prove you right, on some, but not in every instance. (My pov is of the philosophical-political "conspiracy', by dangerous ideologues supported by many gullible innocents, planning our world - trying to shape the minds of individuals and masses. Those receive my greatest disgust). I think you're hasty and unjust, too, when you react slightingly e.g. against Peter's intelligence, visibly assuming his willful obduracy, when all he usually makes are very mild and mannered observations. He is most pertinent too, when you dig into them. He doesn't know what you know, you don't know what he knows and has experienced. So it goes for everybody.
  37. 1 point
    Um, I think something I said didn't communicate accurately to you if you think that I ever placed no plausibility on what you're saying. I've placed a lot of plausibility on it all along. My asking questions about details - and entering correctives on certain wordings you've used (such as "total control") - isn't meant as questioning the fundamentals of "Gang" existence and goals. I have no doubt of the reality of those. Ellen
  38. 1 point
    My reference was to "The Gang," Peter, as per Jon's usage, not "a gang." Read Jon for details on who "The Gang" are. LOL I don't think you're gonna get the discourse style you want - although not treating Jon as a kook would help if you want politeness from him. Ellen
  39. 1 point
    I suspect that President Trump was doing a head fake by ordering, then calling off the attack. Rope-a-dope and head fakes are two of his favorite tactics. I don't see him changing this just because of scope. So we have to wait and see what happens. Based on Trump's past, I think it likely something unexpected is going to happen that will cause a big splash and probably resolve a lot. As to Pelosi and Schumer, they are funded by the war machine (military-industrial complex). No wonder they were happy. More bombs means more money in their coffers. The anti-war left (like Jimmy Dore) constantly bitch about them for this. They also bitch about CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. Notice that every time President Trump does something warlike, the leftie war-mongering press suddenly goes soft on him. Remember Brian Williams calling the 2017 Syrian strike "beautiful," saying things like "beauty of our weapons" and so on? They only go hard on President Trump when he does things like increase the prosperity of average citizens. Michael
  40. 1 point
    And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer. Ellen
  41. 1 point
    'Tis revealing, Pelosi et al's glee at the prospect of escalation. Ellen
  42. 1 point
    I am back to not reading Army Ants posts so I don't know what you are satirizing. But thanks anyway, Brant.
  43. 1 point
    When will charges be laid? It's been six years since she left office -- and there are no new criminal investigations underway or on order. Justice report slams James Comey's actions with FBI in Clinton email case William Barr, attorney general nominee, backs away from prior comments pushing Clinton Foundation investigation Russian Uranium One Deal And Hillary Clinton In The News Again The QAnon corps has been referring to an impending Clinton arrest since Day One of the hoax:
  44. 1 point
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  45. 1 point
    Tony and Korben, Both of your comments treat the Golden Rule as a primary. A contextless rule for all occasions. And that's the fallacy I see in all the criticism coming from our neck of the woods. It's like saying selfishness is a moral good without saying we are speaking from a Randian perspective underneath it. For those who think selfishness is simply taking stuff from others and trampling over babies if one feels like it, they could equally say they had bad experiences with selfish people or there is a logical fallacy in the moral concept, there is a misused mean in the root, and so on. The Randian ethics of selfishness is not a primary. It rests on Randian fundamentals like the axiomatic concepts, reason, productive achievement heroism, etc. Yet there is a form of selfishness that is legitimate (just open any dictionary) and it is bad. Does this mean selfishness qua selfishness is simply a subjective moral concept? That it is invalid? Or does it mean it is a subordinate moral concept? I say subordinate. As to the inconveniences of how religious folks use the Golden Rule, the problem ain't in the rule, but in what their religion means to them. That's the fundament. The Golden Rule is simply a form of implementing it. It's more a process standard than a value standard. Anyway, I happen to think it's a great idea for a person to use the same moral standards for others that he adopts for himself. Think about it. Is there a word one can use to describe employing a different moral standard for others than for oneself? Does the word subjective come to mind? Michael
  46. 1 point
    You can't because you don't produce anything useful... but I can because I do. My clients are other successful American Capitalist producers, all of whom price their products and services to reflect the cost of government just as I do. Since I produce more than I consume, what is a problem for you is not a problem for me. You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is. (shrug)So what? The American Capitalist way to rise above that is to produce your own home at a fraction of the cost of buying a new one from someone else who produces it for you. Then you get to enjoy the windfall profits of your own labor. This idea of becoming your own producer is totally foreign to you isn't it? And haven't you noticed yet? For every problem you have complained about I have offered a real world practical solution. But not just empty intellectual theory, but rather things I actually do myself. That's how I know they work. If you tried getting up off your ass, they might work for you, too. Greg Cost of heart surgery too high for you? Perform a by-pass on yourself for a fraction of the cost! It's the American Capitalist way! When government actions cause the price of a good to be so high that one must compensate by performing the labor oneself, then one's own labor is a cost one is not shifting forward but absorbing. Think of the savings that could be realized by building a four-door luxury sedan (or a two engine airplane) in your own garage on nights and weekends. Since nights and weekends have zero value for Americans, they'll be getting a brand new car (or plane or submarine) for less than factory cost! Capitalism arose out of the division of labor, not out of absolute autarky. You appear to be as well informed about economics as about the personal lives of your debate opponents. What is your "real world practical solution" to the cost of the welfare state? Have every soldier, firefighter and police officer unilaterally raise the price he charges to the consumer?
  47. 1 point
    You have made this claim before, and I have already shown why it is fallacious. Taxes cannot be shifted forward to the consumer through a raise in the price of a good without affecting demand for that good and consequently revenues. Suppose, for example, that under our current version of "American Capitalism," the legislature doubles or triples the gasoline tax. Not a problem, you say. All the entrepreneur has to do raise his prices accordingly. But if the price of lumber (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many homes be built? If the price of bus travel (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many tickets be purchased? The effects of taxation are real and involuntary. This is not Magic Pink Pony Land.
  48. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.
  49. 1 point
    That which I think has been most harmful to the Objectivist movement: Objectivists who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety, that it is a perfect, integrated system, and that to disagree with any "essential" aspect of it is to reject Objectivism, and, therefore, to become an "enemy of Objectivism." This view seems to cause people to behave in self-limiting and self-destructive ways. It causes them to publicly declare things like, "If you're not purely Objectivist (as defined by us), we don't want you, we don't need you, so fuck off." (Attractive slogan, no?) Those who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety often seem to think that it also must be promoted in its entirety, which means that formal educational programs must be the primary means of spreading Objectivist ideas. It seems that even conversations must come as close as possible to resembling a lecture: an Objectivist Crusader usually can't discuss, say, a current political event or a work of art without mentioning Objectivism, quoting Rand, quizzing his opponents on their knowledge of Objectivism, and making suggestions about how they might study Objectivism better. One can't "leave them hungry and begging for more" - one can't be clever and original in an argument, inspiring his opponents with new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and wait for them to ask what his intellectual influences were. No, in all intellectual discussions, a proper Objectivist Crusader must tie the issues and arguments to the whole of Objectivism immediately. In effect, he must change the subject of every conversation to Objectivism. (And from what I've seen, he must also lecture his opponents about Objectivism even after they've repeatedly told him that they are bored out of their freaking minds, no longer listening, and sick and tired of his intrusive, pompous, condescending behavior.) Since no two people will ever agree precisely on what is "essential" to Objectivism, I think that the "Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety" approach is a major cause of the movement's extreme sectarianism and sycophancy. Objectivists often seem to see everyone beyond their insular little cliques as attacking Rand and Objectivism (even strictly personal conflicts are treated as attacks on Objectivism). The movement is full of petty, abusive and manipulative behavior, lies, "airbrushing," public excommunications, denouncements and betrayals -- usually over minor, esoteric differences or purely personal issues -- and ridiculously overblown senses of self-righteousness and self-importance. All of it very public, all of it in the name of "defending" Objectivism, and all of it seen as highly heroic only by those indulging in it. J PS - This (which I've posted elsewhere a few times) is what I think that radio commercials would sound like if businesses borrowed the Objectivist movement's theory of marketing: "The McDonald's on 3rd and Maple is evil. They don't understand or practice the true McDonald's methods and recipes. They are false friends of McDonald's. For one thing, they don't correctly arrange the reconstituted onions on their Big Macs. And their Special Sauce applicator is totally inconsistent. Sometimes the amount of sauce it squirts out is too much or too little by up to 8 percent! If you want a ~real~ Big Mac, eat at our McDonald's out on Highway 18. We are the only true defenders of Ray Kroc's vision. Be forewarned that before ordering, we will expect you to sign an oath that you will never eat at the evil 3rd and Maple McDonald's. They are piece of shit lying scumbag fuckheads who are trying to destroy the purity of of the McDonald's name. We will not sanction your sanctioning them."
  50. 1 point
    Barbara, I have to disagree even that it's "an intelligent and valuable argument." The one point she makes which is important to try to make is that if the energy restrictions desired by the AGW (anthropogenic global-warming) proponents are instituted, this would mean severe consequences for the quality of living of multitudes, and literal death for many -- the exact consequences and figures are speculative, but they'd certainly be draconian. However, she goes so far over the top in her demonizing of liberals, she loses credibility even on the nugget of truth in what she's saying. And I think "embarrassing" isn't the word for what her views on evolution make her look like in scientific circles. There's no way I'd even bring up that article, let alone recommend it as "worth reading," to any of the scientific types I know. And the problem it presents from Larry's standpoint is that the scientists he's trying to persuade to look more carefully at the scientific issues pertaining to AGW are only too likely to hear of the article (not from him) and to bring it up in just the vein Brant described, as indicating that only "the freaks and nutcases" are taking the anti-AGW side. Ellen ___