• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. 16 hours ago, caroljane said:

    .Michael, I do not understand your saying "finally" here, when those gloves came off over two years ago, and helped elect Trump, and are heard coming off again regularly at all his rallies again  the media are booed, shouted down etc. What is new here? It is a constant part of his platform.

    Michael, I do not understand words and sentences. Orange man bad.


  2. 13 hours ago, anthony said:

    Ah, the "opponents", in other words, "sides". Your raison d'etre, not mine. I like arguing ideas instead of ad hominems at opponents.

    Really? You had claimed that certain people have certain beliefs and desires. Go to the top of this page, and read the post in which I quoted you making the claims. I challenged you to specifically identify who -- what real person, not imaginary ones in your head -- has taken the position that you claim.

    No one has. You're inventing opponents, sides, and enemies. You're assigning beliefs to imaginary people, and then attacking them. You seem to be wanting something from me? Do you expect me to agree with the mindsets that you've assigned the imaginary people, and to defend them? Or do you expect me to join you in condemning imaginary people for the imaginary beliefs that you've given them? What?


  3. 2 hours ago, anthony said:

    J. The arguments ring a bell in your mind or they don't. You may compare them to your abstracted understandings from experience, of real works and real artists (and you, of course) and critics and buyers in the art industry you have known, or not. As you wish. The device of "Imaginary people" you have ~imagined~ of me shows concrete thinking, that of wanting to be shown example upon example, without which, it 'follows', my argument *must* be invalid.  A way to avoid considering/debating my quite unoriginal proposition about artists ultimately 'affecting' society with their works. (Also, "society" in turn creating a demand for types of art, which can be taken as an indicator of that society). Relax, this is not all about you anyway.

    Keep arguing with your imaginary opponents.


  4. 5 hours ago, anthony said:

    Well, all the art produced speaks for itself. Connect the dots. Just look at the prolific amounts of post-modern art made, in two broad categories: contra-identification, and contra-value - are they "imaginary"? Are their creators "imaginary"? Did they or did they not make their art with foresight and deliberation? Do they (too) not seek fame, approval and wealth and often to affect people's minds? So what conclusions can one generally infer about these p-m artists' mindset and vision of existence? (in defiance of a long tradition of quality art). You appear always too keen to distance the artwork from the artist's mind, as if he can't take full responsibility for what he makes, as if one shouldn't ever deduce anything about his views of life from his works. When I see art I see someone's mind at work.

    Tony, before going off, like in the above, you should transcribe and post the arguments that the imaginary people in your head have made, and to which you're responding.



  5. 8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    Objectivism can be/should be a philosophy for living on earth, but needs work.

    First it should replace atheism with pantheism.

    Second, the morality needs more work


    Rand never wrote an essay on Objectivist Morality, but she was a moralizer par excellence 

    We're a long way from there being any philosophy which doesn't need a whole lot of work.


  6. 9 hours ago, caroljane said:

    I have often wondered why Rand called Objectvism " a philosophy for living on earth".  I mean. where else were we supposed to live? She certainly did not believe in heaven, and even she was not up to priming us philosophically for living on the moon, or other gravity-challenged environments.

    I found it a bad guide for living on my own patch of earth, but perhaps it was my discipleship that was at fault.I just got so tired of seeing life as a series of moral tests of my own character, which I could never pass.


    Yeah, so you opted instead for an easy philosophy which didn't require any work or moral actions on your part, but which granted you virtue status for just having opinions about how others should be forced to pay for things that you want.


  7. 11 hours ago, Darrell Hougen said:

    That's why I have problems with both extreme positions. A late term fetus is not just a little clump of cells and an early term embryo is not the same as an adult human being. A fetus is what it is and our policies should reflect that fact, in my opinion

    Who claims that a fetus is the same as an adult?! I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

    I have head people take the position that a fetus may have rights, just as a child or adult does, and that those rights are the same that all humans have regardless of age.

    Why not cut to the chase? The only relevant issue at hand is the question of when individual rights obtain, and why. When does the developing entity become rights-bearing, and is therefore considered sovereign, and therefore neither the state nor the woman in whom he temporarily resides may intrude upon that sovereignty by crushing his skull, sucking his brains out, and dismembering him, but must instead resolve the issue of his violating his host's sovereignty -- through no fault of his own -- in a manner which respects his rights, and which is reasonable and proportionate?


    • Like 1
  8. On 2/7/2019 at 12:44 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    No it isn't.

    That's always been his position.

    Always. From the beginning. And it never changed.

    You really should check original sources instead of relying solely on the fake news and bubble people.


    MSK, look on the bright side. It seems that Carol's TDS fever may have broken. She just showed signs of being capable of recognizing reality in regard to Trump! I posted the quote from him, and she actually understood it properly and applauded it instead of following her normal TDS method of misinterpreting it to mean whatever would feed her fever. This is a pretty amazing first step for her toward recovery.

    But it's going to take a long time. The Trump terrors that she experienced during the fever seemed real to her. She believes that they really happened, and she's going to have to reach a point where she wants to accept reality and is willing to do the work of very deliberately and critically examining the truth or falsehood of what happened during the time of her fever dreams. She has taken one small step in that direction, so there's now reason for hope!


  9. I have a thought experiment:

    The world's largest person and the world's smallest are traveling together and making appearances.

    A madman kidnaps them, anesthetizes them, and surgically inserts the small person inside the large person's body (including a means of providing for the small person's survival and body functions: a means to breathe, eat and drink, etc.).

    The larger person wakes up and wants to kill the smaller person. Not just surgically have the smaller person removed, but killed.

    Does the larger person have that right?


  10. Well, let me see if I’m understanding. So, upstart AOC wants government to give everything to everyone for free, and to guaranty everyone a livable income, including not just those who can’t work, but those who are perfectly capable but are unwilling to work, and, meanwhile, she wants to majorly disincentivize production, if not outright punish it. Hmmm. What could possibly go wrong with this plan of encouraging demand and depleting supply while discouraging work and production?

    This ain’t your grand daddy’s socialism! Old school socialism was touted as being about pride in production of the working class, not pride in getting freebies while not producing. Or at least that was the theory as stated publicly. Perhaps this new brand of socialism is just naive and brash enough to be more honest: They think that they’re charming enough to get away with telling us the truth that they want us to provide for them, and that they don’t feel that they have any obligation to contribute anything?


  11. 1 hour ago, anthony said:

    Either an artist (postmodern, or not) strongly desires to have an influence on a large number of people through his works, or he doesn't. Either he believes each work he painstakingly produces is "important", or it is not. He can't have them both ways.

    Specifically who, other than imaginary people in your head, wants to have it both ways?


    1 hour ago, anthony said:

    Except, because of a ready audience and market which highly regard postmodern art, he can in fact get away with his contradictions. "I didn't mean it, my work is a joke, please don't take me seriously - but yes, I mean it, I am a serious artist - because *they* believe me". I think the basic criteria of pomo is when an artwork 1). can't begin to be identified by a rational (visually sane) viewer and/or 2). shows low to non-value in the art itself, holding to self-ridicule and ultimately ridiculing any human endeavor. Saying overall, if you can't see what it is, it's your disability and you must learn a ~different~ reality; and if you can't giggle at the art you take your life too importantly.

    You're off to the races again analyzing imaginary people who have taken imaginary positions. Crazy town.


    1 hour ago, anthony said:

    The first task of an artist isn't moralism, and shouldn't be - that usually results in weak and prescriptive art, when tried -  he achieves plenty, more than enough, when he's true and honest to his personal vision, whichever it may be. However, the effects (and he must recognise, also) don't stop with just completion and people's viewing of his work, they cumulatively knock-on into other art, general media, movies, popular music, intellectualism, the way people see themselves and existence, think, value, emote and behave, and finally, into politics and mass political beliefs. Who could think it surprising that the pomo phenomenon coincides with and preceded this period, maybe the most sensationalist, cynical, anti-reason and anti-individualist? "You asked for it..."

    Thanks for telling us all about art and the imaginary people who live in your head, Tony.


  12. 16 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

    Hell yeah!  Can I order that as a bumper sticker?!?!

    I don't know. Perhaps. On Facebook, someone asked Uncle Newbsie where one might order a shirt, and Newbsie replied by posting a link to some person's LinkedIn profile. I don't think that that random dude is selling shirts, but that Newbs probably wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to what he was doing. He was probably distracted by having his special artist feelings while posting.

    NO MO PO MO!




  13. Did you guys see the part of the State of the Union speech where Trump admitted to hating people of other races and nations, and wanting to refuse to let any of them into the country?

    Here's the quote:

    "Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways. I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally."

    Fucking Nazi!


  14. Check it out! Newbsie is tilting at his wind mills in a new way, fighting his imaginary version of postmodernism (based on his special artist feelings) by engaging in the postmodernist tactic of wearing a shirt that says "NO MO PO MO" (and selling the same?).

    He says that he's negating and nulllifying postmodernism.

    Heh. How long has he been focused on doing so? Personally, I've been witnessing him doing it online for coming up on 18 years.




    Michael Newberry

    Just published now my 2-min read No Mo Po Mo 
    ““No Mo Po Mo” puts into words something I’ve sensed since I was a kid. Negation is an awkward approach to doing things as you might never get around to doing anything. But I found that it works like the comment by Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Nixing all the things you don’t want to do and don’t want to become leaves some doable things, if not some great possibilities.” Read more ...

    Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, eyeglasses and closeup
  15. 7 hours ago, caroljane said:

    Tyrants tend not to have ideologies these days; they use the multitudes of idealists  who are desperate  for a leader to realize their ideal, and the aspiring tyrant uses them, or kills them as is politically expediient, until they achieve that power. You used to know things like this Jonathan - when was it that your memory started to fail? I noticed mine was becoming annoyingly selective after I turned 112.

    Which "ideal" have Putin and Kim preached, mine or yours?

    Which "ideal," mine or yours, includes the component of force used to compel others to pay for the "ideal"?

    Do you not advocate, and even cheer, the idea of punishing those from whom you wish to confiscate wealth? Do you not vilify such people, prior to knowing anything about them or how they produced their wealth, and promote the use of the power and force of government to realize your "ideal"?

    Putin and Kim don't cease to have ideologies just because you're uncomfortable admitting that your differences with them are merely a matter of degree rather than of kind.



  16. 16 hours ago, caroljane said:

    Yes, pretty sure, I don't remember reading or hearing any Trump statement about Nazis being good people. (Tyrants like Kim and Putin, yeah ... but I can't find anything in my own  comments about Trump praising  Hitler et  al.


    Hmmm. Don't Putin and Kim share your ideology? Why are you upset with them? They're doing what they do for the causes that you believe in.


  17. 34 minutes ago, caroljane said:

    No, you're not.  I  don't even remember hearing that particular lle -if I (don't) remember that correctly. My memory is not that infallible though, so if you have any quotes fom me, I will stand, you know, corrected.

    Are you sure? I could've sworn that that lie was on the list of the many lies that you repeated about Trump after hearing them from the leftist activist media.


  18. 5 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

    Back when the Charlottesville imbroglio happened, Trump said there were good people on both sides.  The principle of charity should have you interpret him to mean that there were good people on both sides of the statue question.  Not that there are good people among the white supremacists who hijacked the event.  Media attack dogs have been repeating the other interpretation ever since...

    Didn't our Carol join in on the repeating the lie that Trump had said that Nazis were good people? Am I remembering that correctly?

    And another leftist lie at the time was that Trump "refused to condemn" "those on his side" who had committed violence (despite his having said that he condemned all violence on both sides), and that he even excused the person who used his vehicle as a weapon as having rightfully acted in self-defense. I spent a few days working on convincing a couple of journalist friends that their misinterpretation of that issue was not supported by any facts, that there conclusions were non sequiturs. It was quite a struggle to get them to set aside their emotions and to dispassionately listen to and absorb what I was saying. And even after they understood and finally agreed, they were still resentful and hanging on to their emotional judgments, though I had made at least some headway on that front as well.

    TDS is a tough thing for its victims to overcome.



  19. On 2/2/2019 at 1:44 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I have a more nuanced legal view. Since the mother's body is literally being used for the environment and survival of the fetus, I hold that jurisdiction over the life of the fetus belongs to the mother, not to the state. In my perfect world, she literally and legally holds the power to determine if that individual lives or dies from slaughter. And no one would be able to touch her legally if she chose to kill it. And, yes, this would go all the way up to birth. After birth, after separation of the newborn from the mother's body, the governmental protection of individual rights kicks in, starting with the right to life.

    In my view, the mother has the right to evict the embryo/fetus/baby, but not to kill it. If it can't survive independently of her, then that would determine that it's not viable, and that the mother has no obligations to it. If it can survive, then that would determine that it is viable, and the mother's parental obligations apply. I think that individual rights kick in at the moment that the individual is capable of living outside and independently of the womb, and that moment can only be determined by removing the embryo/fetus/baby, unharmed, and allowing it to display if it can live.

    I think of it in the same way as any other property rights issue: Your body is your property, but that doesn't mean that any and every violation of that property right results in the act of killing the violator being a valid, reasonable or proportionate response. If you own, say, a plot of land with a small, uninhabited building on it, and discover a squatter, or even an abandoned baby, you would not have the right to kill that trespasser. That would be quite an extreme and inappropriate response to such a minor violation. And the inappropriateness would be increased if you had previously taken some sort of action which you knew would result in the trespasser being allowed into the small building.



    • Like 1