Kevin Haggerty

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Kevin Haggerty

  • Rank
  1. Absolutely, they can both be wrong. And how! But they gotta be wrong about what they're wrong about, don't they? I don't see intellectual dishonesty in using your friend's tactics in a war of words, particularly when it's your friend's idea to use 'em in the first place. In these parts, calling a man "intellectually dishonest" is about as black a mark against his character you can find and it makes me a little bit crazy how ready some people are to go there. I do see Hillary trying to bring Barrak down as a person and I think it's a bad move--she goes for the ad hominem like a pigeon g
  2. Y'know, you might have a point here if it was a whole speech. If he copied a speech. But it's not and he didn't. It's a blurb, it's a sound-bite. It's a 30 second quip. What it really is is a come-back. Hilary says he's "all words" and this is his retorts. All his friend had to say was, "All words, eh? Just bring up all the great words of America's great orators, like 'I have a dream' and 'we hold these truths to be self-evident,' etc." It's a list is all. The reason his "speech" is a copy of Patrick's "speech" is because they both list the same chestnuts of American rhetoric. Not
  3. Dustan, it was Patrick's idea for Obama to use his tactic in the first place, Patrick thought it would be a good way to respond to Hilary. So there is no "vs." here. Intellectually dishonest... It's just people looking for dirt where there is none. Kevin
  4. Omygod, she was an Aquarius??? That explains EVERYTHING! :sorcerer:
  5. Ah well, shoulda kept lurking. What excuses can I muster? It was late? The lights from the oncoming cars blinded me? I was posessed by demons? No. I fail. Carry on. Good to see you about, Jonathan.
  6. Hey everybody, sorry for coming so late to the party, but having not finished AS, I tend to skip threads on the topic (naturally enough). Add to this that I've only read the first 6 pages of this thread and then this last, and perhaps I should really continue lurking, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUT (takes a breath) I have a defense of Dagny that no one seems to have offered as of yet. The crucial issue here, as always, is context. Without context, yes, she killed a guard because he couldn't make up his mind. Shock! Outrage! Bob isolates the sentence which denotes this and then jumps to whatever conclus
  7. Ach! No child is being saved from cancer by this. No child is being saved from HIV by this. There is no earthly reason to circumcise a child. If you elect to be circumcised upon reaching your majority, no one will stop you. Please, Bob, in this, at least, desist. -Kevin
  8. Yes, Michael, scalping was first used as a way to determine payment to mercenaries sent by the British Crown into Ireland to kill Irishmen--more scalps, more proof of murder, more payment. When the Crown was done with that campaign, they sent the same mercenaries to America to kill Indians. The Native American "military" was so astounded and so impressed with the savagery of scalping they felt that they must "escalate" their practices to match it. Culturally, yes, scalping had a strange connection to the difficult to translate concept of "counting coup"--a practice derived from the ritual s
  9. Hey Robert, I'm no Peikoff scholar by a long shot, but from what I have read, it strikes me that in his writing revilement tends to trump philosophical consistency. So often, he seems simply to be going for the put-down: "It's evil!" becomes "It's meaningless!" becomes "It's stupid!" depending on what aspect strikes him as being the most damning in the moment. The black and white world he inhabits (and no, I don't see a world that is all greys, but a world in full color, thank you very much ;) ) disallows him making distinctions between degrees and kinds of wrong. Wrong is all wrong, largely
  10. There have been many great tenors, men with beautiful voices, but Pavarotti--man! He was something unto himself! I can listen to Nessun Dorma a thousand times (and have--and will a thousand more) and every time his voice catches me by surprise! His was a dream of a voice, something seemingly impossible and yet so real. I feel lucky to have lived in his time. -Kevin
  11. Hi Paul, I know the thread is over a year old now, so I'm not surprised if the stuff I referenced doesn't seem to be part of this thread, but that's where I got it. In addition to the quote of yours that I posted, your Nathaniel Branden quotes are from post #22 as well, and Dragonfly seemed to be arguing that "free will" was the modern equivalent of a cargo cult pretty much the whole time he was posting here (you and he had obviously been working the topic over in other threads, but I don't believe I've read those). To state my position more starkly, I don't see how determinism is at all comp
  12. Wow, I missed this discussion completely! And now some of my off-line reading has gotten me thinking about will in some new ways and with Bob's posting yesterday, the title of this old thread announced itself to me from the "today's active topics" page and I started reading it, etc. (Michael, isn't it wonderful how broad and deep the world of O-L has become? How hard it is, I presume, for most of us to keep abreast of all the many fascinating developments? Quite an accomplishment! Thoroughly redundant congratulations to you and Kat!) It's funny, me visiting this site and finding it of va
  13. Steve, I got two words for you: Ayn Rand. Born in Tsarist Russia. And--and--she had no children. And yet. Not "not particularly rational," but exceptionally rational. And, a heck of a legacy, wouldn't you say? Even "heirs." This kind of trendy trend-mongering you're talking about becomes more and more fictive the further into the future you project it. Human beings are not fruit flies. And rationality is--get this--a natural reaction to reality itself. It cannot die out any more than the human desire for beauty or our lamentable fear of the unknown. And as demonstrated by Ms. Rand,
  14. Hey Dustan, Thank you for your very civil reply. Here's what I got for ya: first of all, there is no promise or contract implicit in pregnancy. A girl of 14 can become pregnant, but what contract can she reasonably be held liable for? In fact, one can become pregnant with absolutely no knowledge of how conception is achieved. Also, pregnancy is not a definite outcome of sexual intercourse in any case, only a possibility. Even pregnancies reabsorb and miscarry on their own, not infrequently. So pregnancy is never a simple matter of choice. So we are gonna force a woman to accept full res
  15. But Dustan, If a life is wholly dependent on another life for existence itself--I mean wholly and literally--do they truly have a separate, individual existence? Shouldn't a person have the right to say "no" to such an arrangement? Pull the plug, so to speak? The situation puts the mother in a position not so much to murder the fetus as to withhold her body from it--a strange form of murder, to say the least. Bringing a baby to term is also a risk and a personal sacrifice. What you're arguing seems to be a moral obligation of a pregnant woman to sacrifice a portion of her life for anothe