Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/19/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    There is no Federal debt. It's de jure not de facto. This "debt" is money already put into the economy. If it's a cause of inflation it's already happened. Tackling the debt means taking money out of the economy causing a recession or depression. --Brant
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    Yeah, dumbass, for emotionalism. Co–conspirators are guilty of every crime the conspiracy commits. For example, if your role is to arrive in the getaway car and all you do is drive that car, you are going away for a long time for bank robbery. If one of your co–conspirators shoots a teller, even though that was against the plan, you are going away for murder. If one of your co–conspirators murders someone years later, in order to keep the robbery hidden, then you can be put away for that murder, as well. Maddow can and will be put away for any number of acts of sedition and other high crimes committed by her and her Mockingbird handlers.
  4. 1 point
    Why is Maddow going to prison? For corrupting "reason" or for overblown emotionalism?
  5. 1 point
    We can check—off Mueller exoneration.
  6. 1 point
    I agree it is odd that few people have heard of him, outside of scholars. I'd say Comte observed and approved of the sacrifice sickness always visible in society, and uplifted the concept (and named it). An idea precedes, outlives, and is larger than the thinker. Like philosophers do, he had spin-off influence on others e.g. on Marx (!) and Mill and Spencer. Robert Campbell has a very good essay in OL somewhere, on Comte and altruism, wrt Rand's take on them. He confirms she got it precisely right. Wiki: Influenced by the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon,[4] Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences. Comte was a major influence on 19th-century thought, influencing the work of social thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot.[6] His concept of sociologie and social evolutionism set the tone for early social theorists andanthropologists such as Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer, evolving into modern academic sociology presented byÉmile Durkheim as practical and objective social research.
  7. 1 point
    It really is fucking weird. It's like, "Isn't it funny that we're saying that this fucker we hate is motivated by what we just made up, and therefore he's so petty and small so let's sneer at him, tee hee hee?" They're all acting like it's just the funniest shit ever. J
  8. 1 point
    I don't understand the unfunny-these-days comedy world's mocking on the Nunes lawsuit. I could understand some mockery, but what we are seeing is an orchestrated fake news media campaign. Do these people really think public mockery is going to mean anything in court? Something's going on for this to be this orchestrated. And, as usual, the campaign is decided and implemented by a club of insiders--and you are not invited into the club. Michael
  9. 1 point
    "Full-blown" altruism is a rare qualifier by me, I use it only in relation to Watson's "pathological altruism" (aimed at the Prog- Left), cleverly recognized even by that non-O'ist.... Since many people are not cognizant of altruism's wider and deeper nature, innocently taking it at face value. i.e. Just being kind, helpful or considerate to others, so getting sucked in. Then, the many non-innocents know also that invoking "altruism" and their distorted versions of 'empathy' unfailingly submits others' minds and actions to their will. And there we see the SJW's, media, and all the rest. If there's any doubt about the atrocities of altruism/otherism, I suggest to see it in the context of interference in others' lives, minds, freedom. That "interference" we can take to any degree and kind. (Not reasoned argument/persuasion, of course, which we notice is logically, the loathed target of today's altruists). "Interference" goes counter to acknowledging the general "other" as having an inalienable value in themselves and their lives, (as well as their potential value to one - far secondarily). To wrap up on others and our relations with them, there are those specific individuals to whom one gives one's attention, affection, respect, cooperation (etc.etc.), based on one's actual - known - value in them. But, in every sense, either using others by this now, totally implanted 'morality' as the instruments to your gains -and/or, being used by others for their ends, is where *sacrificial* altruism laid down by Comte and accurate to him comes in. Rand didn't invent the concept nor use the term idiosyncratically, she simply saw straight through its premises and effects. Comte reported on and admired what he saw in how societies function, but was blind to (evaded) much underlying self-interest, and he didn't estimate the benevolence factor, but developed his ethics out of the citizen's necessary, selfless duty ... all for all. One huge blob of selflessness. You see the results of his observations and ethics at work still (and worse than ever). Giving money, the material and physical side of altruism is just the iceberg-tip - some inexperienced Objectivists miss the big context and then could make ludicrous errors, like objections to helping out in emergencies, which you've pointed out. I am not unhappy I've not long been too privy to as much " knuckleheadedness" in this community as you. Naturally I've seen some and will see more, but I accept them as others' struggles and mistakes, where I have my own to concern me. When it distracts from the important things, some ignorance of the back-story and others' doings and statements is not always a bad thing. ;) Michael, to me the key to understanding the essential nature of altruism is in one definition by AR: "surrendering" the self, "self-abnegation". Which is the precondition for its survival. Clearly, sacrificers can't operate if there aren't self-sacrificers - especially when they are restricted from using physical force. The two go together, occasionally running in the same person, like now. What it means to 'negate' oneself, one's mind, i.e. one's rational standards, values, independence, happiness and all knowledge, is to enter degrees of gradual self-sacrifice that could be thought of as 'self-loss'. At the extreme I strongly suggest that the NZ killer who sacrificed others' lives to his notions of *a cause* (in his head, a lesser value in favor of a greater one, therefore, a gain - he might justify) is both self-sacrificial and sacrificial, the ultimate altruist. Even the most irrational person cannot escape his most basic knowledge of what basic humanity and its basic value is, and by discarding their humanity and his own, he's "negated" himself from human being to beneath an animal (which, pre-conceptual and not therefore consciously 'selfish' nor self-sacrificial, can't select alternatives among its acts).
  10. 1 point
  11. 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
  12. 0 points
    Oh, you're paving the way for the statists but you aren't a statist. Look, let's let CO2 happen; it's going to anyway. More plant and animal life AND the planet qua planet isn't at risk. Just the polluting humanoids. Let them eat their just desserts. Now correlate your supposed scientific position with us living in an interglacial period likely to end sooner rather than later. Maybe saving humanity--is that what you're about?--is pumping into the atmosphere all the CO2 we can as fast as we can? Your essential triteness has been noted.If you're honest here you are trite and if dishonest you're that and trite. Now about a ad h. There is a ad h and simple ad h. The latter is not a logical fallacy. --Brant
  13. 0 points
    Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped. He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks. Why? Ellen