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
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  5. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 2 points
  12. 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.
  13. 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/
  14. 2 points
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  18. 2 points
  19. 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?
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 1 point
    What's especially disturbing to me about the alleged professionals diagnosing Trump (and his followers) is that their descriptions of their alleged observations don't match reality. They speak of constant "tantrums," "meltdowns," "tirades," and such, to describe Trump's calm explanations of his disagreement with his political opponents. They infer the worst possible motives in any statement that he makes, assign those motives to him despite evidence to the contrary, and then judge his mental health based on nothing but those hostile inferences and false assignations. These are people who are practicing mental health professionals. It appears that climatology isn't the only profession which has been polluted by political activism. J
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    Here is a link to my song "Ave Maria (Ellen's Prayer)" as performed March 10 in Minneapolis. The singer is Christina Christensen, mezzo-soprano (https://www.facebook.com/ccmezzosoprano) and the pianist is Emily Urban (https://www.facebook.com/emilylurban). (I am not sure how long this link will remain active; I will post a permanent link later. However, the audio file can be downloaded from this link.) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MXQSi8JqBFqXL4CszL7I38c4jEsLaQhZ/view
  25. 1 point
    Be still my heart .... Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Field Day With a Redacted Mueller Report. History shows that skeptics seize on redacted information to fuel their theories. By Brendan Nyhan ... reading the article to this song from the Glory Days, Sylvester.
  26. 1 point
    Altruism was appropriated by the totalitarians for moral justification for their idiological snarmniness and Rand countered with "selfishness" thereby justifying in her own way tyranny if tyranny be a value to whomever. The major flaw in her philosophy is its center in morality instead of politics and it's implicit and explicit morality. She was not wrong about rational self interest but she never recognized the nature of self interest in altruism. Of course, the religionists used altruism the same way the totalitarians did, to justify themselves and to control the subjugated and to subjugate. What has been obscured in this ideological warfare by its sheer bilateralism is actual human nature. The irony of the world of Atlas Shrugged is the sheer human destruction by the men of the mind going on strike is exponentially greater than anything the totalitarians have managed to achieve too date. Now I know I am mixing up my categories, fiction and non-fiction, and Rand declared she was trying to prevent a socialistic America, but Rand too was always mixing up those categories. However, man the individualist was also and always man the provider and man (man and woman, of course) the protector. Man and his (her) family. The irony is the Atlas bad boys were the heroes who let the other bad boys play just to practically illustrate in every way Rand could imagine how bad the bad boys and their policies could be to the USA. Not included, though, were anything like the Nazi and Communist genocides. Just good old Mr. Thompson and naked John Galt on the rack. That was essentially the end of her magnum opus. In her previous novel naked Howard Roark laughed. Roark led straight to Galt. This is why there is no Objectivist movement. The Objectivists are in Galt's Gulch. --Brant
  27. 1 point
    As in, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? It sounds like Hicks did the equivalent to a quote from Foucault.
  28. 1 point
    That is of course the fallacy. The interval [0,2] contains infinitely many points, and infinity is not a natural number, therefore the notion of density doesn't work, as the density is also infinite, and 2 * ∞ = ∞. Cantor, cardinality, continuum and all that. It isn't surprising that people like Aristotle and Galileo didn't understand such things well. Therefore those helpless attempts to consider circles "jumping" or "waiting" to make up for differences in traveled distance in Aristotle's paradox.
  29. 1 point
    Sure, soon as Jon learns to stfu.
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    Very good article. Trump's Master Spooks Behind the scenes, Trump's spooks are destroying the enemies of the Republic, using astonishing tradecraft. Their assault has been devastating, as REX explains. https://quodverum.com/2018/12/337/trump-s-master-spooks.html
  32. 1 point
    Or, in terms of the original statement of the paradox, it is impossible to have: X2 - X1 = R * (T2 - T1) x2 - x1 = r * (t1 - t1) X2 - X1 = x2 - x1 T2 - T1 = t2 - t1 and R > r where X2 - X1 and x2 - x1 are the distances traveled by the big and small wheels, respectively, T2 - T1 and t2 - t1 are the angles (theta) that both wheels rotate (e.g. 2pi radians) and R and r are the radii. That is a mathematical statement of Aristotle's paradox. Darrell
  33. 1 point
    There is no straw-man KorbenKeatingShit-For-Brains cannot cut down.
  34. 1 point
    The paradox can be illustrated in two ways: 1. The larger circle is on a “track”/surface and the smaller circle is dependent upon the larger. 2. The smaller circle is on a “track”/surface and the larger circle is dependent upon the smaller. Solve either 1 or 2, and solving the other is trivial. Taking away both “tracks” destroys the paradox. Assuming both “tracks”/surfaces exist simultaneously muddles it. All of Jonathan’s videos and drawings show two “tracks”/surfaces simultaneously. That is the con in Jonathan’s con art. That’s the crutch, without which Jonathan and you are helpless.
  35. 1 point
    http://m.digitaljournal.com/news/world/bush-grandpa-traded-with-enemy-for-3-years-before-assets-seized/article/424715 Here ya go Brant 😊
  36. 1 point
    You meant "Randalize" didn't you?
  37. 1 point
    I usually give them 5 bucks at Christmas time as I walk into Walmart. I will reconsider giving them nothing. Sometimes the person ringing the bell is someone local who I know.
  38. 1 point
    Michael, Thanks for the thoughts, links and videos.
  39. 1 point
    Korben, Jon kinda says it all. Once you make a correct identification, I can argue gotchas with you. Until then, educate thyself. You have a good brain. Get it out of the garage and take it for a spin. I guarantee you'll like the ride. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Thats right. With one correction. No hacking. They paid, and they got the keys.
  41. 1 point
    Ok, that shows her using it as a heuristic herself. So it's kosher. Not too long ago I heard Yaron Brook criticize TAS for ascribing a different "villain" quote to Rand. Someone posted it on OL.
  42. 1 point
    Canada and the Saudis Canada just got a taste of what the real world is like outside its bubble. From Reuters: Saudi Arabia freezes new trade with Canada for urging activists' release Excerpt: This is what happens when you treat a tiger like a pussy cat and want to spank it for messing on the carpet. A classic case of evaluating without correctly identifying first... Canadians treated Saudis like Canadians and now wonder what the hell happened. Michael
  43. 1 point
    The first step in grasping what is really going on is to grasp that no MSM outlet will ever come out and say what is really going on. Look at their behavior over decades - they are not neutral but are soldiers in a war, Some people are only halfway through this step: they understand that the real answer will not come from MSM, but they still consume a lot of MSM and they subconsciously accept the constructs they consume. But the constructs are utterly false and their acceptance derails any chance at seeing the truth even if they happened upon it. In this case the construct is that the Saudis and Canadians are disputing about Canadian human rights criticism of the Saudis. The Saudis can’t take criticism, so they are going berserk, throwing out diplomats and immediately going to nuclear trade war. A simpleton readily accepts all the above construct because he has met such people. Cashiers at cheap stores, the popcorn guy at the movies - “people like that are everywhere, I know because I’ve met many of them.” The simpleton accepts the construct and then the entire explanation provided. There is really nothing here to investigate or understand, he concludes, just some abusive tyrants who can’t take criticism and are choosing to wreck economies and international relations, instead. The non-simpleton rejects the entire construct. The non-simpleton understands the Saud family have been in power in the most cutthroat part of the world for about one hundred years. They are among the most wealthy and powerful people on the planet. Criticism of them is constant, anyway. The chance that the construct reflects reality is precisely zero. And yet the Saudis do seem to be going hard on the Canadians, as though something very big is happening - so what can we conclude? Something very big is happening.
  44. 1 point
    Criteria 1) "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution." Criteria 2) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines" Criteria 3) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. " Criteria 4) "the two lines have the same length" Criteria 5) "the wheels must have the same circumference" ____ I'm going to comment on these, but I'll just say first that the entire paradox is set up fallaciously. First the wheels do not have the same circumference as Criteria 5 says. Criteria 4, however, is correct that the lines do have the same length. But what the two lines represent are the distance between the midpoints of the circles from point A to point B, (Criteria 1 does say the wheels roll). So these two lines do not represent circumferences like Criteria 3 says, "the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences." Criteria 1, "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution."----What point are they referring to that do not slip? It's ambiguous as written. So: If Criteria 1 is saying the point is the midpoint of the circles that the wheels do not slip on, then that part is true. They rotate on their axis without any slippage from point A to point B. If Criteria 1 is saying the point they do not slip on is on the lines drawn at the bottom of the circles and that the wheels are fixed along their tracks, then this is wrong in saying that they can move from point A to point B without slippage. One wheel can have a fixed track at a time and not have slippage, but they cannot both have fixed tracks at the same time and not have the inner wheel slip, to explain: If the outer wheel were fixed along its track the inner wheel has slippage along its track. If the inner wheel were fixed along its track, the outer wheel would not make a full revolution. Why? Because the inner wheel's circumference is less than the outer wheel's circumference. (Which again, Criteria 5 is fallacious saying that, "the wheels must have the same circumference.") So to summarize: Criteria 1) "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution." -- FALLACIOUS Criteria 2) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines" -- TRUTH Criteria 3) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. " -- FALLACIOUS Criteria 4) "the two lines have the same length" -- TRUTH Criteria 5) "the wheels must have the same circumference" -- FALLACIOUS The only thing paradoxical to me is how this thread keeps going!
  45. 1 point
    “In what may be the biggest fail of the year, Facebook, the social media network that just released an app for children under 13, asked users if they think it’s OK for a male pedophile to request sexual pictures from a 14-year-old girl. The shocking question was asked in a survey sent to users about how the company should respond to certain behavior. This is the full question as it appeared in the survey: “There are a wide range of topics and behaviours that appear on Facebook. In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook’s policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures.” Participants could then correctly respond with “This content should not be allowed on Facebook, and no one should be able to see it” or choose three other very wrong options: “This content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it,” “I have no preference on topic,” or “This content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it.” That’s not all. A follow-up question asked users who should be responsible for this decision: Facebook, external experts, or users. The correct option: the law, was not listed.” https://www.dailydot.com/debug/facebook-pedophile-survey/
  46. 1 point
    Jules, I've been working on learning how to draw, starting with owls. Here's one method I've been studying, but it's taking time for some damn reason. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Okay, so the poll that Trump cited had 62 percent of hispanics saying that they were better off under Trump, but the number was 42 percent for all respondents (and not just hispanics) compared to 30% who said that they were "about the same," and 26 percent who said that they were "worse off," so it's snickerty snickens tee hee hee time? Oh my god, how mathematically inept tee hee hee and embarrassing! An additional tee hee hee gotcha by the press is their pointing out that the poll question didn't actually ask about Obama by name, but only about a point of time during which he was president, so, therefore Trump's having said that Americans and especially hispanics are better off under his leadership than Obama's is a great big lie! The left has lost its damned mind. J
  48. 1 point
    Um, wrong again. More lefty Narrative and projection. I had a fabulous childhood, I love life, and I love creating, producing, laughing. I love people, I enjoy getting together with friends and neighbors regularly to share each other's company, and I love to voluntarily give of my time, effort and money to people in need, including to new arrivals to my nation and state on a personal, one on one, face to face basis. I help. Me. I don't try to get moral credit for just having an opinion and for voting that someone else should be forced to pay for what I've decided that I want done. So don't try your smear tactics on me. Don't try to justify your anger and your shit ideology by trying to paint me as something that I'm not, like you do constantly with Trump, the Koch brothers, and anyone else who is taking away your side's power to abuse mankind. Carol, you advocate the use of physical force to compel people against their will to serve your hateful political beliefs. It doesn't get any more regressive and unattractive than that. You resent the idea of people escaping control and the punishments that you want to inflict on them. Often, you express a sense of glee at the prospect of punishing others. Someone has produced more than you, and they are therefore disgusting and need to be brought down. That's your ugly ideology. Heh. How fucked up of a childhood must a person have had to work as hard and to do as much lying and spinning as you do in order to try to justify your rage about being stripped of some of your power to punish your betters. It's really cool watching Trump trigger you and your ideological ilk. J
  49. 1 point
    The Dark Side of the New World Order conspiracy is a concoction from France and Russia, to wit, -The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion- which is a plagiarism of a French work done in 1864. In any case this has produced one of the most vicious and persistent memes ever. Whever your picnic is spoiled by ants or rainstorm, blame the Jews. Whenever the economy goes South, blame the Jews. etc. etc. etc. -The Protocols- translated into Arabic is one of the best sellers in the Islamic world. This feeds into their Nasty Meme, the War of Islam on the Dar al Harb. And so it goes. Ba'al Chatzaf
  50. 1 point
    Ellen, Sure. That's easy. There are different words that can be used and I am not comfortable with some Objectivist jargon, so I will use several options, but they all mean the same thing. Induction is a mental process [genus] of integrating and differentiating observations into a single mental unit [differentia]. Here is the same idea in different words. Induction is a mental process [genus] of recognizing a pattern and creating a single idea for it [differentia]. Here is even another way to say it in different words. Induction is a mental process [genus] establishing a category based on observation [differentia]. OK. I figured you'd suggest something along those lines. I see all three of the variants as just alternate ways to define Rand's meaning of "concept-formation." (I like the 3rd best and the 2nd least, as having the most ambiguity.) However, I think that if such a defintion had been all that Rand meant by "induction" in the statement we're talking about (from pg. 28, ITOE), then she'd have been writing a redundancy -- in effect she'd have been saying: "Concept-formation contains the essential pattern of concept-formation." I strongly doubt that she wouldn't have noticed that she was being redundant if all she'd meant by "induction" was along the lines you indicate. I don't agree that your proferred definitions would suit for "principle" or "conclusion" or "any name we can think of just so long as it is a single name or description" (or for types of "idea" other than concepts). Nor do I agree that "[your] definition above is covered in the definition 'a'" you give from Free Dictionary: The difference between "a" and "b" is that "a" is definining the process and "b" the result. "Induction" in the "b" usage would be prefaced by an article: He formed an induction [via the process described in "a"]. The induction "all swans are white" has a famous history in philosophy. Ellen ___