• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BaalChatzaf

  1. 7 hours ago, Peter said:

    Shucks. You got it. I have asked before if Freud followed scientifically pure methods and no one answered sufficiently. Now you must divulge your true I.Q. Are you from planet Earth?  And will you help me play the stock market?      

    Yes    ..... No


  2. "The Case for Trump"  by Victor Davis Hanson.  

    An excellent book showing  how Donald Trump totally blindsided the Media and the Establishment. 

    Pay particular attention to Chapter  6  which is  a detailed description of how the "Deep State"  operates.  For a politically naive person such as I am,  it was both alarming and enlightening.  The embedded Establishment is actively trying (and happily not succeeding)  in useating a sitting and legally elected President.  They are a nasty and vicious lot.

    I am a fan Of Hanson's writing and scholarship.  It is such a rare pleasure to find well written English, of the kind that V. D. Hanson writes.  I have read several of his books and heard his lectures which are video recorded and available on You Tube.  

    His book "A War Like No Other" is probably the best book on the  Peloponnesian War  written for history non-specialists. 


    Ba'al Chatzaf

  3. 6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    All time is is a measurement of motion. There is nothing there except things that move. All space is is the distance between objects, also a measurement. "Space-time" is nothing as such.


    Measurement of change.  Motion is change of position. There are other kinds of changes too.

  4. On 6/24/2019 at 12:35 PM, Peter said:

    Per your last sentence, consider kids who are born into privilege and wealth. Can too much "smart" be a detriment?

    An occasional failure  can be the motivation for much success.  Failing now and again is good training for picking one's self up off the  floor and trying again.

  5. 6 hours ago, Peter said:

    Under your hypothesis, risk taking, sky divers, sea divers, mountain climbers, entrepreneurs, stock market investors, ignoring a "private property" sign, joining the military, poker players and gamblers everywhere, and even speeding would have the affect of making you stronger if the activity doesn't break your back. So, is there a rational reason to take risks? I want to be stronger so I will get the ladder and  . . .

    Or are you just talking about happenstance and misfortune befalling worthy people? Sufferers of PTSD might also disagree, but  occasionally I hear or think a phrase like I wouldn't be the person I am today if XYZ hadn't happened. I think Ayn Rand would agree with you, but she might say it was the positive, personal mental state and philosophy of the persons who have bad things happen to them that makes your phrase come true.

    I wish no bad things would happen to me. I was trying to remember if any Rand characters took "real risks" and the only one I can think of is Francisco, though I suppose founding or living in Galt's Gulch was taking a risk. Joke headline. FBI, ICE, and IRS raid mountain hideout of billionaire seeking illegals and tax evaders. Peter         

    Happenstance.  I am not out looking to receive non-fatal blows.


  6. 49 minutes ago, anthony said:

    Right, what I could call - someone meeting the resistance of reality (good and bad other people, in there too). There's a strong draw on a viewer/reader for a fictional protagonist when the odds are greatly stacked up against him/her, which defines most fiction. For me, most absorbing is the protagonist whom you can see in the process of volitionally creating his character qualities as the story progresses, as greater pressure on him mounts - iow, he is not 'a done deal,' his integrity and fortitude are tested and grow, he's having to make hard moral decisions as the plot unfolds, keeping you guessing which way he'll turn out, and succeed or not.. As we know, a prominent few of Rand's characters enter with a ready-made virtuous character; and she also shows others develop along the way. We want "heroes" to mentally/emotionally invest in, so it's critical  they are authentic, like us, and rising to bigger challenges than ours. They can do it, you can. Even people who scorn free will, evidently need a film hero who triumphs against adversity, going on nearly all the (although often over-physical) movie scripts one sees, which proves that realist romanticism is not completely dead. I think it's telling that most tacitly recognize their individual power of volition, needing to see demonstrations of it, while intellectually dismissing the idea.  

    Any blow that does not break my back, makes me stronger....

  7. 19 hours ago, Peter said:

    Per your last sentence, consider kids who are born into privilege and wealth. Can too much "smart" be a detriment?

    Yes.  Being smart and knowing one is smart  and occupying a position of privilege can sap ambition and the urge to excel.  

  8. 16 hours ago, Peter said:

    Dream Weaver on another site wrote: Origin of life: A prebiotic route to DNA. Date: June 18, 2019. Source: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München


    Summary: DNA, the hereditary material, may have appeared on Earth earlier than has been assumed hitherto. Chemists now show that a simple reaction pathway could have given rise to DNA subunits on the early Earth.


    The crux: [A] team of chemists led by LMU's Professor Oliver Trapp has proposed a much more direct mechanism for the synthesis of DNA subunits from organic compounds that would have been present in a prebiotic environment. "The reaction pathway is relatively simple," says Trapp, which suggests it could well have been realized in a prebiotic setting. For example, it does not require variations in reaction parameters, such as temperature. In Trapp's experiments, the necessary ingredients are water, a mildly alkaline pH and temperatures of between 40 and 70°C. Under such conditions, adequately high reaction rates and product yields are achieved, with high selectivity and correct stereochemistry. 

    The is reminiscent of the Urey-Miller experiments.  Please see:–Urey_experiment


  9. 18 hours ago, Peter said:

    Nicky wrote on another site: For instance, in NYC (or NYS, I'm citing this out of memory, so I'm not entirely sure which), an overwhelming majority of genius level IQ tested high-school students are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews. A crazy amount, something like 49 out of 50 "genius" IQ students in NY are Jewish. That's a natural consequence of Ashkenazi Jews being, on average, about ten points above the average population, in IQ. Which is not that much. But small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences when it comes to outliers (in this case, geniuses). end quote


    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.


    • Like 1

  10. On 5/18/2019 at 9:41 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Australia Just Did A Trump

    It looks like Australia just had an election that was reminiscent of 2016 in the US.


    I've only skimmed this issue online and I know precious little about Australia, but it looks like the entire establishment and press corps. were 1,000,000,000% sure of the election results favoring the left, with poll after poll after poll.

    Also, they were badgering Scott Morrison (the incumbent PM who won) to say whether he would step down if he lost.

    The press I saw seemed just like the press against Trump. Just switch out the names and I bet the texts of many Australian news articles were identical to anti-Trump ones here in the US.

    Here's an article about the election win from The Daily Mail for the sake of info:

    Scott Morrison WINS: Liberal leader claims an extraordinary upset and will remain Prime Minister - as Bill Shorten loses the unloseable election after voters reject his radical left-wing agenda

    What I saw just now on Twitter was equivalent to that lady who screamed, "Noooooooooooooo!..." when President Trump was inaugurated. One after another. Man do these lefties hate...

    Now all we need is an investigation into whether the Russians did it.



    Yup.  Austrialion just had its own Rebellion of the Deplorables.  England had BREXIT, the U.S.  got Trump  and Australia  got rid  of the Labor-Green  kabal to impose wind turbines on the public,  at public expense of course.   Good for Oz!!!!!!

  11. On 9/1/2014 at 9:38 PM, Samson Corwell said:

    So the whole positive/negative rights dichotomy--never quite liked it myself--is one of the major themes present in libertarianism and Objectivism. It exists in the wider field of political science, but it's not raised much as an issue. Most people, even if they're political junkies, probably haven't heard of it. "Positive rights" are the prevailing problem libertarians and O'ists face, as you know, because it involves, as they see it, expansion of government power.

    Negative right: A duty imposed on others to refrain from acting.

    Positive right: A duty imposed on others to act.

    A "right to food" is a "positive right". A "right to life" is a "negative right". The "right to food" requires others act to provide someone with food...or does it? The reason I ask this is because there are certain commands in the Bible that in effect say "under certain conditions, this stuff that you think belongs to you actually belongs to the worse off". Note that I'm not endorsing this, merely pointing out what I think is a potentially serious problem. An example of stuff that might belong to the poor: the scraps from a crop harvest. In this case, this isn't necessarily a "positive right". Because these scraps would belong to the poor, it means that these scraps are their property, and therefore there is a negative right in them.

    I think that the implications of this are that looking at this situation in terms of negative rights versus positive rights mistakes the point. Any thoughts on this?

    No.  A right to food mean you are free to grow your own food or seek the means to purchase food from others.  It is NOT mean someone has to feed you.


  12. On 5/12/2019 at 12:24 PM, atlashead said:

     I live in a tension unbearable pain because I want to create and there's so many things I want to do but oddly what I want to feel most is jealousy a clean battle where I've lost the only way to kill the pain is to work but I feel like I'm not ready yet that I'm learning the responsibility of creating I'll know when this is passed I feel like I'm a masochist because I love my work that's why I'm not doing it I want to be broken

    My particular God is John Galt I want to be broken by John Galt

    R U  Serious?


  13. Our detection of electron and other subatomic particles is theory laden.  What we perceive is the output of a device which taken together with a theory or  model that asserts the output is from an electron (or other subatomic particle)  constitutes a "detection" of the particle. If we didn't have a theory we would not be talking about electrons and other non-perceivable objects.  


  14. On 5/6/2019 at 2:35 PM, Peter said:

    We have speculated about this before and not just on this thread, but I want to know if anyone else has come up with some new ideas based on scientific speculation, or just wild ideas. Three theories with questions:


    One. Can we humans rightly assume that on the planets’ of so far UN-detected aliens, their LESS intelligent life, if it exists, is like our own primitive earth life? Is it irrefutable to say that any alien life which MAY exist, evolved to survive and reproduce like life on earth? I think life will be the same throughout the Universe, down to the microscopic level but more evolved life will not be the same. So, is it possible that in the Universe some intelligent life reached or will reach the *Volitional Level* and HOW MUST aliens be like us? I know it is silly in a way to speculate about possible intelligent beings, but life on earth may be seeding the solar system and the galaxy as time passes and as we evolve here on earth. If life does not exist elsewhere it may exist in the next millennium from the action of panspermia.  In the realm of religious belief, one could speculate from a Hindu or Christian perspective for example, that life was JUST created here on earth. But here we come Universe!   


    Two. The distances in the universe are extreme. Yet, in a what-if scenario, could you imagine something that an alien would travel great distances to attain? There could be things similar to the fictional elements Latinum, (on Star Trek The Next Generation) or Unobtainium (in Avatar). So, if we have something of immense value, even if earthlings do not know it, is the idea of space traders or raiders plausible? Any thoughts on that? And I recognize, as Jules Troy did, that air, water, food, and fuel may be what is most sought items by any alien visitors.


    Three. Any new ideas on why we have not received any communications from somewhere in the universe? If messages are available for humans to receive how will we finally receive them? Radio and light transmissions are picked up here on earth all the time. But what might a quantum leap in communications be?




    Right now we have no way of knowing for finding out.  Anything done now is speculation and supposition.

  15. On 5/4/2019 at 1:33 AM, Jon Letendre said:

    So that means asserting Trump is secretly a Jew. This presumably from things like moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. When he announced the embassy my thought was that he had some mild screwing of Israel (or Jews, many) on the schedule and wanted to first win over as many Jews as possible. That way when he pulls the screwing out of his pocket he could defend: “The one and only US President to ever ...  embassy, Jerusalem ... so how dare you question my commitment to Jews ... “ When he announced support for Israel keeping the Golan my thought was — oh, so it’s going to be a moderate screwing, then. My sense is that soon the world learns that Israel has been up to some indefensible things, Trump will have to act, and it won’t go over well at all. Unless by the time it happens even the Left is convinced the man must be Jewish himself.

    Ask the cartoonist what it means.


  16. 10 hours ago, Peter said:

    I was being facile and not facetious. That is what I remember from an article in Scientific American Magazine. Now I am being facetious. I think scientists have tried to duplicate that formula but they have never been able to create life, even with a bolt of lightning added into the  . . . "mix." Mud, ooze, time, evaporation, and then add more water. Repeat. It still never works. They have duplicated the "building blocks" but not actual life. So, what are we missing? Ba'al might have a suggestion. Peter  

    Someone left that cake out in the rain.  I don't know if I can take it, it took so long to bake it  and I'll never have the recipe again... oh no......

    • Like 1

  17. On 4/29/2019 at 5:19 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Who Is The Nazi?

    Take a look at the cartoon below.

    Doesn't it look like something right out of Nazi Germany when the Nazis were in power? 

    If you don't know much about what that looked like, do the following. Type (copy/paste) into Google, or hell, any search engine:

    antisemitic propaganda in nazi germany

    Then click on "Images."

    Then look.

    Now look at the cartoon below.


    Who would publish that today?

    Well... Doesn't that look like something right out of The Daily Stormer or some other Neo-Nazi white power publication?

    It wasn't them, though. Not them... nor anyone like them.

    That thing was first published in the New York Times international edition last Thursday.

    After a shit-storm, the New York Times took down what they could and, finally, a few days later, issued an apology--on Twitter. They also said they don't know how that could have happened, blah blah blah...

    But think of it.

    Jew-hating Nazi-like picture propaganda.

    The New York Times.

    International edition...


    Let that sink in...


    There is a subliminal anti-semitism wired into our culture.  Mostly it is out of site, but it is always there. One might think the Right Wingers would be most likely to manifest this attitude, but  not so.  Anit-semitism is alive and ill in the camp of the liberal progressives.  And I think know why.  Jews have overcome the disadvantages of their marginal position in our society primarily on their own initiative and effort.  In short, they did not need the government to manage the problem.  The fact that Jews have succeeded without government largess and assistance is proof positive that the the assumption government is needed to overcome  racism and bigotry  is  a canard.  And this pisses the Liberal Progressives off mightily. 


  18. 15 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:


    I grieve for the folly of true believers in climate change. It's an article of faith at BBC that we have to abandon internal combustion engines, kill coal and liquid fuels, walk to work or use an electric scooter in winter, in a thunderstorm, or on a blazing hot summer day, no way to carry groceries and jugs of milk home to feed a family of five. Silly me. Plastic bags and jugs will be outlawed, no refrigeration at home or in the store, no air conditioning, no big rigs to stock a dimly-lit WalMart, no dairy or meat, no mechanized agriculture. Childbirth will be dangerous, medical care filthy, and surgery a rigged dice roll without one-time-use plastics. No utility pumps to push water over the mountains in the California Aqueduct. No sewage treatment or garbage trucks. No fire engines, buses, or digital server farms. That's what solar power implies. A couple of LED lamps at night while you charge your electric scooter.

    Mistakes of this size are not made innocently, as Miss Rand used to say. The only difference between an industrial society and savages squatting in mud huts is a portfolio of high voltage power distribution, heavy equipment, and widely available refined petroleum products.

    Say Amen, someone.

  19. 9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:


    Where did Cher learn all that right–wing drivel from?

    Doesn’t she know that unlimited immigration is a boon to all? They come here “to work” and every lover of logic and reason knows they could have no other motivation to come. They bring their energy, creativity and enthusiasm. And they enrich us culturally. What’s this nonsense about them needing help or being a burden in any way? To hear Yawon Bwook explain it, she should personally take them all in and thereby have all the wonderful benefits of immigration for herself. She doesn’t seem to understand how mass immigration works and how good it is.

    Do I detect a note of sarcasm and mockery?