• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. My only worry is that Phil might be attempting with his students what he tried to inflict on us. The man was aggressively psychologically needy, and so much so that his feeding his deficiencies overrode any value that he could bring to a discussion. Which says a lot, because he's a smart dude who can bring it. Satisfying the urge to control and punish was more important, more powerful than any subject. I hope he's fighting that urge when it comes to his students. J
  2. Helloooo? Just checking in. Has Merlin made any progress learning projective geometry? Many questions and challenges on this thread remain unanswered, unmet. And some probably remain ungrasped. Is Wikipedia still fucked up from Merlin's molestations? Heh. What a shitshow. J
  3. Heh. That's a "TANTRUM"? And that's a "real" interviewer with "difficult" questions? Mr. Shapiro, I've selectively misinterpreted some fragments of your past statements to mean what I want them to mean. I gotcha. Defend yourself against my accusations. Pro Boss Real Interviewer right there. Is he the male Cathy Newman? J
  4. And not answering is very important to Billy. The dodging and the distractions are similar to the methods used by highly religious people when asked difficult questions about their beliefs. The attitude change is also interesting. Usually, Billy can laugh at anything. Not this. It's as if it's personal. Sacred? J
  5. Oh, no, you poor victim! They™ have challenged you to support your position, and They™ won't let you bullshit your way out of it? They™ are not falling for your dodges and distractions? How mean of Them™! Poor, poor darling!
  6. Speaking of predictions, Billy, do you have any answers to my questions yet? 'Member all of those times that I asked about successful predictions? I've been predicting that you can't and won't answer them. What does that say about my hypothesis? J
  7. Let me guess before following the link: Doom? Punishment and control needed? Freedom bad? J
  8. The little people need more punishment and pain:
  9. Indeed! The reactionaries will definitely be having conniptions and using the ice stories above to push for more punishments and controls. J
  10. Um, Pup, you can't copyright someone else's work. Adding text to someone else's work that you stole from an online source doesn't make it yours. The copyright belongs to Dr. Ron Blakey, Professor Emeritus NAU Geology and Deep Time Maps™. J
  11. Oh, noes!!! Are we all going to die? Will the world end in 11 and a half years? What do we have to do to save existence, Billy? Punish and control other people? In a few years, when old Arctic ice is no longer the frantic panic du jour because the predictions failed again, and the ice is increasing again, the focus will switch again to a different temporary panic again. Punishment and control of other people will be the solution to that severe catastrophic nightmare as well.
  12. Whew is right! And it's settled science since it comes from someone at a prestigious university. We have to trust our scientists and professors. The only question now is how do I find out if I'm an insect alien hybrid, and therefore in charge of controlling, punishing and killing everyone else as I see fit, in order to save the planet. I'm pretty sure that I should be in command. I can feel it.
  13. Not quite true if you nclude the Objectivist Esthetics, which is anything but adherence to reason. J
  14. Why do YOU work to undermine it, Billy? Perhaps the Russians have motives similar to yours? J
  15. They seem to be feeling that it's within reach now. Their excitement levels have been noticeably increasing lately. They're becoming more open in expressing their true desires. We must create pain. J
  16. Scott has misidentified the problem. The actual problem is people wanting to control and punish other people. Gen 4 doesn't solve that problem, but removes some of the excuses and satisfaction. So, in order to make Gen 4 palatable, they'll have to find a way to make it include more control and punishment -- and more costs -- more than what they've been advocating and proposing in regard to old energies and technologies. How can Gen 4 be used to reverse the concept of merit? Until there is a good answer to that question, it will face strong opposition.
  17. It's a weird building. Beautiful yet ugly, and even creepy in ways. Flying buttresses? They're nightmares. Exoskeleton/spider-alien. But the building works as a whole, aesthetically. It wouldn't have the same impact without the dark characteristics.
  18. Yes, or anyone who screams "Not ART!!!" as loudly or louder than Kamhi does. Whomever dedicates the largest portion of their life to denying the validity of other people's aesthetic responses wins, and becomes the universal standard and limit of cognition and of aesthetic response. J
  19. "The" definition? Heh. Um, I think that people can have differing views on what is or is not art. I just think that any definition and criteria that anyone offers up should be consistent, non-contradictory, and it should treat everyone's aesthetic responses as being equally valid, not just Ayn Rand's and Michelle Kamhi's. If one's definition and criteria require, say, communication of intended meanings, then that should be true of all art forms, and then all alleged art works should be objectively tested, rather than Rand's or Kamhi's favorites just being arbitrarily and falsely asserted
  20. The unintended result was the destruction of art. Nothing is art by Objectivism's definition and criteria. Perhaps someday one thing might become art, and then another, but, for now, nothing qualifies or has been objectively proven to qualify. Objectivishists value denying art status to abstract art more than they value consistency, rationality and objectivity. They will not abandon their rules which they use to reject abstract art, even when they are shown that those same rules have the same devastating effect when equally applied to their favorite works which they falsely claim are validly c
  21. Hmmm. Conspiracy-tinged? WTF. So, in today's world, NOT coming to an immediate conclusion that no malicious intent was involved is to present a conspiracy-tinged mindset? Merely keeping an open mind and expressing hope that a devastating event was an accident is vicious? Speculating about possible causes that might be worth considering is now bad and kooky? J