Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Posts

  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. 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.
  3. 3 points
    I hope my posts get a lot of sads (from the anti-Trump bitches!)
  4. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  5. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  6. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  7. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  8. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  9. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context. It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.
  12. 2 points
    The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-brother and the son of the late Fidel Castro. http://whatsupic.com/index/cuba-justin-trudeau-fidel-castros-son/
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    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?
  15. 2 points
    Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.
  16. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  17. 2 points
  18. 2 points
    Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?
  19. 2 points
    Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?” I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death. I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus. The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour." I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.” There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large). From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700 a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. > I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation. In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent. Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism. I n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on. Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired. It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses. If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill
  20. 2 points
    Folks , Trump did not win an election but orchestrate a coup d’etat against the establishment . This ain’t left and right , nor liberals and conservatives . It’s We The People v The Establushment Bullets are not the weapon of choice in this Revolution , it’s memes . I called this a Revolution near the beginning of the thread . I thought that the establishment would win , hence I called for Rubio to win the nomination . Trump won , he is digging in and personally , I would love to see The Constitution to be amended to give him three terms , but that cannot happen so hopefully President Ivanka will continue what we have started in 2024 . Who is Donald Trump ? Reread Atlas Shrugged
  21. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  22. 1 point
    Final days of Seth Rich conspiracy peddling? Kevin Poulsen has a different perspective, based on the Mueller Report itself: Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians Julian Assange repeatedly blamed Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer, for Russia’s leaks. The Mueller report shows that Assange was lying from the start. Exclusive: The true origins of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. A Yahoo News investigation.
  23. 1 point
    See how deceptive the left is? Totally. I apologize for not including a link to Media Matters ... I was unusually lazy.
  24. 1 point
    btw - I am no fan of Corsi. I actually read Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump. This could have been a very good book, but was basically a rehash of stuff from online discussions and videos without much improvement. I know because there is nothing in the book I hadn't seen before back when I read it. And, don't forget, most of the stuff one gets online needs a lot of improvement. This didn't happen in Corsi's book. Whether I like Corsi or not, agree with him or not, consider him to be sloppy and speculative or not, think he does more bad than good for spreading a pro-Trump message or not, even think his QAnon stuff that he promoted up to getting in trouble with Mueller is credible or mostly made up to promote himself and sell his book, that does not excuse what the Mueller people did to him. I get tickled by people who think Corsi was a kook until he said a message they agree with (his apology stuff). Then he becomes a credible source. L O friggin' L. In other words, to these people, Corsi lies until he doesn't. And they'll decide when he doesn't and becomes a sage. To me, Corsi is a kind of scholar for the fringe of the pro-Trump people. And he's not a very good scholar. In fact, at times, he's awful. To get value out of his work, you have to use him in the same manner you use all the major conspiracy folks. He's a blunt instrument to crack open topics that the powerful want buried, but he's not reliable for the details. And all of his conclusions need to be taken as a batch of uneven opinions--some spot on, some wacky and everything in between--that need further research. There's a trick to using these fringe folks correctly. See where the powerful get the most agitated and do the most damage to the fringe folks and right there will be the stuff to look at. (For a real good example, remember when they threw everything they had at a rather mediocre YouTube video maker to cover up the Benghazi mess? Or when they railroaded Dinesh D'Souza over campaign finance? Etc.?) Since Mueller came at Corsi with guns blazing, that's where the rot is. It doesn't matter what Corsi says from that point on. What he was talking about is what they want silenced. In my opinion, starting with Seth Rich... Michael
  25. 1 point
    As in, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? It sounds like Hicks did the equivalent to a quote from Foucault.
  26. 1 point
    I'm just going to restate Aristotle's Wheel Paradox for people who don't seem to understand it because of the mechanical aspects of the problem. Forget about wheels. Instead, consider the function f(x) = 2x defined on the interval [0, 1]. Then, if y = f(x), y is defined on the interval [0, 2]. The function f(x) has an inverse, so that x = f-1(y). Specifically, x = y/2. Now, let yi be any point in [0, 2]. Then there is a corresponding point, xi = yi/2 in [0, 1]. Similarly, let xj be any point in [0, 1]. Then there is a corresponding point, yj = 2xj in [0, 2]. Now, assume that the interval, [0, 2] contains N points. Then the interval [0, 1] also contains at least N points because for every point in [0, 2] there is a corresponding point in [0, 1]. Similarly, if [0, 1] contains M points, then [0, 2] also contains at least M points. Therefore, M must equal N. But, the length of the interval [0, 1] is 1 and the length of the interval [0, 2] is 2, a paradox. I might not quite be doing the paradox justice, but consider the following: If there are N points in the intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2], then the density of points in the first interval is N/1 or just N, while the density of points in the second interval is N/2. So, the density of points in the interval [0, 1] is twice the density of points in the interval [0, 2]. Now, if I double the number of points in the interval [0, 2], then the number of points in the interval [0, 1] must also double and the converse is also true. But, the density of points in the interval [0, 1] is still twice that of the points in [0, 2]. So, if I keep doubling the number of points in the intervals indefinitely, the density of points in the shorter interval will always be twice that of longer interval. And, in the limit of infinitely many points, the limit of the ratio of the densities will equal 2: A (seeming) paradox. I'll return to the mechanical problem later. Darrell
  27. 1 point
    Strange, "choose files" works fine for me (apart from upload limits...), I just put the cursor on the desired file, hit <enter> and the picture is uploaded (apart from...) Total Commander is one of those Norton Commander type file manipulation programs for Windows, I use it because I then can avoid that horrible dragging... In general such a limit is the amount of data you can upload in a certain period (1 day, 1 week, etc.), at the end of that period the limit is reset. At the moment my limit is only 0.02 MB. You can find it at the bottom of your edit window, under "choose files": "total size 0.02 MB" in my case.
  28. 1 point
    Blah, small potatoes. Tony was experimenting with ideas of Darrell's cones and funnels mimicking a large wheel and small wheel. Weeks ago. Of course the first thing to do is to level the ends.
  29. 1 point
    We did say that the circumference of the small circle slides or slips in relationship to the track. The small circle is not doing a true roll on the track. This is not to say that the small wheel slips in relationship to the surrounding figure. Nor is it to say that the small wheel's circumference is extended (your latest incorrect attribution). Ellen
  30. 1 point
    You have it reversed, Merlin. Your cycloid exposition merely restates or reconfirms the paradox - you merely demonstrate that the small wheel indeed accomplishes a traversing of road length in excess of its circumference, a fact already understood, indeed the very fact that the paradox is all about. Your cycloids confirm the problem, they don’t resolve it. The small wheel’s skidding on its road and the precise calculation of that skidding resolves and explains the paradox.
  31. 1 point
    Click on your name at the top left of OL. Go to the "do not see messages place" and type in his name. He Really is an ab-whorent psycho. something is really wrong there.
  32. 1 point
    Sure, soon as Jon learns to stfu.
  33. 1 point
    Oh, now you reply to me! Too funny. Look Tony, whenever I go too fast on my motorcycle, the inner circles go slower than the rest of the wheels. When I slow down, they catch up. Reality. Try it and you’ll see.
  34. 1 point
    MSK, Welcome to discussion! You may have missed it earlier, but here's a video of what happens when a large wheel rolls freely on a surface without slipping, and it carries along the smaller wheel which is firmly attached to it. The small wheel necessarily slips/skids while it rolls on the surface at its base (as described in the actual "Aristotle's Wheel Paradox," rather than the one that Merlin has recently dishonestly edited at Wikipedia in order to fake reality). The issue here is that Merlin and Tony can't visually track and grasp the small wheel's slippage/skidding on its surface under conditions which don't include as much visual information as in the above. In the above video example, I've included all sorts of textures and markings so that anyone should be able to track the motion and see what's happening. The problem has been that other visual representations haven't included any such markings, and, without them, people like Merlin and Tony very easily get lost and confused. But they don't want to accept the fact that they've been fooled, so they choose to believe their mistaken interpretations of the visual representations which don't have textures and markings, and they therefore conclude that above representation, in which the slippage/skidding is clearly visually obvious, is, as Merlin has claimed, a "con job," a "scam," and an "optical illusion." Jon had also posted videos of marked wheels and surfaces in which the slippage/skidding is undeniable, and none of it has gotten through to Merlin or Tony. They are not cognitively suited to grasping it. They are visuospatially/mechanically inept (that's not a moral judgment, but a simple, objective evaluation of their cognitive abilities in this area). And they are also stubborn, and refusing to consider others' arguments and evidence. J
  35. 1 point
    LOL... Perfect: Michael
  36. 1 point
    William, You once said you wanted a recent example of a false flag. Well, you're looking at it. Unfortunately, this is a false flag made by idiots who can't even shoot straight and, what's worse, it's a Hail Mary pass to get media attention to bump some lame-ass stuff damaging to the Democrats off prime time instead of hiding an actual dastardly deed, but there it is. Friggin' amateurs... In the same vein, there's a highly racist robocall going around in Florida aimed at Gillum. It's attributed to one eminent group called "Road to Power" in Idaho that's supposedly a white supremacist group. I listened to part of their recent podcast (on Bitchute) to see what they were about and this is another staged bullshit fake-out. The guy started preaching that we need to abolish freedom of the press and put the all the press under government control. The problem is, white power people just don't talk like that. Friggin' amateurs... This shit is not even worth debunking. Everybody sees what's going on. I hope they enjoy their Blue Wave bye-bye... Michael
  37. 1 point
    Lindsay Lohan meets reality, what a metaphor for the US One of the problems when you live-stream stuff is that others record it. Look what happens when a famous true-believer social justice warrior goes out into reality to demand that the world obey her because of her feelings. She gets smacked, smacked hard, and it scares her. Mother of two punches Lindsay Lohan over 'child abduction' bid As I understand the story, Lohan was in Moscow and met a Syrian refugee family out on the streets (they appear to be homeless). She offered to take them to a hotel and house them so they could watch movies and other cool stuff. The parents did not want to accept her hospitality, especially for their kids, and walked away from her, taking the kids with them. Lohan followed recording live and did what any self-respecting social justice warrior does. She accused the people who didn't agree with her (the parents) of being evil. She said they were subjecting their kids to human trafficking and ruining the Arab culture. When she tried to grab the hand of one of the kids, the mother hauled off and whopped her a good one. This is kinda like what the elitist lefties have done to the American education system. Except they actually did get their nasty mitts on the kids. But the parents woke up and the elitist lefties are stunned that the parents are whopping them a good one, especially in politics right now. But not just politics. The cultural backlash is in overdrive, too. The elitist ring-leaders know what they are doing, so they expect this, but I hope their true-believing useful idiot progeny are as scared as Lindsay Lohan was. It's a great wake-up call to meet reality for the first time, get whopped hard, and survive it. It's the start of growing up into adulthood. Michael
  38. 1 point
    In the town I grew up in, we used to have a guy stand on the street corner with a bullhorn and shout nonsense. In the past he had been involuntarily committed a few times for other things. Just sayin'.
  39. 1 point
    Many of the Cordair kids, as well as Rand-follower artists who are not represented by Cordair, have called themselves "Romantic Realists™." Cordair's own subheader is "The finest in Romantic Realism." I don't think that's an accurate descriptor of most of this type of art. The visual style is indeed realism: The objects/entities depicted are easily identifiable and realistically rendered. However, the environments and situations are highly artificial and unnaturally overly orchestrated. Forced. And the aesthetics of the poses aren't really romantic, but stiff, empty, lifeless. It's as if the artists think that hanging nightgowns on a rigidly posed figure in a architecturally rich environment mathematically equals "romanticism"? Instead of "Romantic Realism," wouldn't it be closer to the truth to call this stuff something like Posed, Staged, Overt Signalism? Or Conspicuously Exaggerated Bursting With Bodily Physicality While Remaining Facially Calm and Expressionless In An Odd Environment That Was Selected Not Because Of Any Contextual Relevance But Because The Artist Maybe Thought That It In Itself Would Clearly Signal Romanticism ("Um, today I think I'll put on my ballet slippers, but maybe go topless, and bring some strips of cloth to let the wind swirl around me while I balance on something like a classical column or globe out in the middle of the ocean.")? J
  40. 1 point
    No more excuses. Styx finally has his shirt on! When I say the giant social media platforms are not strictly private property anymore because of their integration with the government, Styx lays out a really good case for this in this video. There's even more to it, but at least this is in plain language and it's really hard to refute. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they should not be selectively banned. Besides, didn't the courts say that President Trump could not ban offensive comments to his tweets (although that is a feature Twitter offers) because it was a public service or something like that? Well... Pandora's box is now open... On another note and in defense of Korben, I have to admit, the skull with an eyeball in it is an improvement over the scrawny chest. He's still gotta work on that John Lennon look, though. Michael
  41. 1 point
    Jerry, If the government does not have a right to censor Alex Jones, then YouTube definitely does not have that right. It--and especially its parent company Alphabet--is a private company on paper only. I would agree with Brook if these social media giants were not so deeply in bed with the government. For an easy example, they were weaponized by the US government during the Arab Spring. These companies gave up being private a long time ago. Michael
  42. 1 point
    I love the way that Billy's laugh wrinkles his nose. J
  43. 1 point
    You asked Jon a legitimate question? What was it? If you're willing to have a grown up discussion, I'd be interested, even if Jon's not? Please, repeat the question. Oh, wait, was it the snicker snicker tee hee about Trump's comment about 62 percent of Hispanic people believing that they're doing better under Trump, 42 percent of all respondents believing the same, 30% feel that they're doing the same, and 26% feel that they're doing worse? Was that your big "legitimate question"? J
  44. 1 point
    The left ate my homework.
  45. 1 point
    Korben. In the spirit of full transparency, I quote your hidden message and I fixed the title... Michael
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    Carol, I'll try to go slow. Nobody had ever heard of Incels until quite recently except for a very tiny number of fringe people. Now, suddenly, the media is hollering their heads off about Incels as if this were a widely known thing for a long time like ISIS. Whether you agree that this is strange or not (but it is as strange as all get out ), there is a fact of complex societies like the one we live in. When power is involved, powerful people who are threatened with change and about to lose their power do bad things to try to keep it. Also, people who don't have power and want it often do bad things to get it. One of the favorite dark side tactics is to create chaos in order to create the need to impose order. The public clamors for order if the chaos is bad or has strong media impact. The ones who can supply that order are the ones the public will follow. One of the favorite covert ways of creating such chaos is to take unstable people and goose them until they do something atrocious like a killing spree. The unpredictability of this method allows for a great deal of deniability by the goosers. (btw - This technique is actually taught.) I don't know the personal history of the guy who committed the killing in Toronto, but I would bet a lot of money (and win) that a "close friend" or "confident" came into his life not too long ago saying just the right things to bond with him--strongly bond with him from feeling his pain--and I would further bet that person is no longer around. If anyone starts looking, the Toronto killer will not be the only disturbed individual, either, who suddenly got a new friend. He was simply the one who crossed the line from the prompting. He wasn't the only one being pressured, but he was the one who popped. Nobody could predict the chaos and that is the reason this tactic is so effective. ISIS and other Islamist groups recruit much the same way, except, instead of inducing their targets to go on a killing spree, they get their subjects to leave their country and families and join these organization to kill nonbelievers and establish a Caliphate. This tactic works and works well. All anyone has to do is look and they can see it. There is a psychological profile of people who are susceptible to outside suggestion on this level. Predatory organizations (like ISIS, dark side assholes, etc.) seek out Internet users with this profile based on their online activity. They are usually young males with deep insecurity issues, full of resentment and who feel powerless. The predators bond by validating their insecurities and bad feelings, then mold them by suggesting things to do to cure it all. This tactic may be targeted to a specific profile of young insecure males, but underneath it is garden variety pacing and leading taught in any persuasion system. The fact that there has been such a strong increase in media activity (along with things like the bots on the Incel forum) leads me to believe the recent chaos in Toronto was orchestrated by some Very Nasty People either within government or within groups that want to take power in government. Since the Incels the media are bashing have a male profile (despite Heavy pointing out that it was females on the fringe who came up with the term and formalized it), I imagine the hard-left wing of the feminist movement is somehow involved. This wing has gotten a lot of power recently in Canadian politics, so much so you guys now have double-digit genders written into law. As a final note, the dude who shot up a lot of girls in California because he couldn't get a date was not all that recent, however, he is being used as an example of Incel violence as if he were. I don't think that loser was triggered by a "sudden friend," though. I think he was just a spoiled asshole who flipped out. From a different angle, there is a lot of talk about the sheer number of mass murderers who took psychotropic medicines like serotonin uptake inhibitors for a time before they went berserk and started killing. This would not explain the media propaganda campaigns, but I believe side effects from psychotropic medicine could be a contributing factor. When gobs of money and gobs of power can be seen near tragic lethal events in society, and coincidentally, there are hamhanded propaganda efforts pumping right along beside them, I have a real hard time believing in the propaganda. I have a much easier time looking at who is to gain from the the gobs of money and gobs of power and think they might be interested helping that outcome along. I think this way re endless war for profit, too. I despise people who get their wealth and power from the killing humans market, even more so when unsuspecting innocent humans are the ones killed. This goes for those who engineer the killing humans processes that comprise this market. They are the moral scum of our species. Good people don't like to believe they exist or actually manage to do bad things, but they exist and they do bad things. Michael
  48. 1 point
    “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather according to the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will.” President Rand, er, Trump, today. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-proclaims-may-1-2018-law-day-u-s/
  49. 1 point
    Oooh, 'folks like yourself who see only' blah. This is gibberish to me, Adam. You have no argument, just apparent prejudice. I would ask you to flesh out your gibberish, but I don't think you can. I don't think you can connect your brief angry meta-analysis to facts. Such is bigotry and ignorance and pretension to knowledge. That you cannot seem to understand the horrors of war in Syria that have led to the 'hordes' leaving, there is no rational fruit to discussion with you. As if some unknown-to-you actor has whipped up an invasion. Pitiful prejudice and irrationality to my eyes. This is no good, Tony. You seem uninterested in challenges to the propaganda of the video. So be it. I shouldn't bother with trying to reason along with you as long as you ignore the import of my previous remarks entirely. As you seem to assume "both rates [will] remain steady" in succeeding generations, I can't get purchase on shared cognitive ground ... But, maybe this is the crux: you do not know how many children a second-generation French Muslim woman will have. You haven't tried to research this question, instead falling back on 'surmises.' That may indicate something important about the way you think on this issue -- in terms of Them, of collectives, of innate Muslim fecundity, a fecundity that cannot be and is not influenced by the societies in which they make their homes. What other facts need? You haven't given any facts. I am wondering if I should file you with Jerry as supporting "They are breeding like flies" and believing the ugly alarmism of ISLAM TAKING OVER EUROPE ! This thread should have been lodged in the Garbage Pile, in my opinion. Ignorance, prejudice and bigotry are not what I associate with Objectivist Living.
  50. 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.