Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Michael Stuart Kelly last won the day on August 18

Michael Stuart Kelly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

396 Excellent

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Articles
    Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues Thoughts on the 12 Steps and Self-Forgiveness Why the Tolerance and Support? Atlantis in the Wilderness A Hunting Story Moral Perfection Like a Lamb to the Slaughter Letter to Madalena ... An Homage to the Value of Valuing Going Home... A Few Thoughts on Family Values Where Principles and Rights Break Down The Stigma of Addiction Book Review on an Addiction Fraud - A Million Little Pieces Charmed on a Raw Night The Nature of Private Written Correspondence – The Sciabarra Smear Online Objectivist Mediocrity The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value The Virtue of Silliness (w/Kat)
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

66,812 profile views
  1. Rush Limbaugh predicts the next monkeyshine out of the Dems will be an attempt for real at impeachment. What About Trump Will Leftists Go Crazy Over Next? He's having a great time in this transcript, too, discussing the left's descent into insanity. Sometimes Rush gets to the level of poetic. (Sorry... my shadenfreude is showing.) Rush thinks when Pelosi comes back, she will be out of options to stave off impeachment since the money people in the Dem party are now getting on board with the idea, so knowing she will be tanking the Dem election, she will have to do it. If Rush is right, I bet this affects Pelosi's health. I'm serious. If she believes her choice will cost her both the presidency and her own personal power in Congress no matter what she chooses, I think, at this stage in her life, it could make her sick. Michael
  2. Molyneux makes a great point. If Epstein did commit suicide and, apparently did his will two days earlier, the will is probably not valid. You sign an oath that you are of sound mind when you execute a will. Planning suicide does not qualify as "of sound mind." Michael
  3. Welcome to Pages! Pages extends your site with custom content management designed especially for communities. Create brand new sections of your community using features like blocks, databases and articles, pulling in data from other areas of your community. Create custom pages in your community using our drag'n'drop, WYSIWYG editor. Build blocks that pull in all kinds of data from throughout your community to create dynamic pages, or use one of the ready-made widgets we include with the Invision Community. View our Pages documentation
  4. btw - The following is not being touted too much, but at least it is in the fake news mainstream media in several places (once ). Epstein's lawyers 'not satisfied' with autopsy conclusion and vow to carry out independent investigation Michael
  5. Brant, Shit. How can we get any outrage going, or even a decent lynch mob, by doing that stuff? Michael
  6. Let's hear from The Man. What does he have to say? Michael
  7. Where have I been? You mean the idea of buying Greenland is not part of AOC's Green New Deal? Here's a different view from Breitbart. According to the article, this is the third time the US has contemplated purchasing Greenland (once after the Civil War and once after WWII). Pinkerton: Why Buying Greenland Is One of Donald Trump’s Best Ideas Michael
  8. I yearn to take down the Deep State and the other elitist authoritarian assholes who are screwing up the world. I'm not a Big Brother is good by default kind of guy. My default is that lying liars who keep lying and are proven to lie tend to lie. Michael
  9. Vampires and Diversity Let's do some brainstorming on how to do a comedy of manners, shall we? Let's wed the social justice movement to vampires and see what we get. Suppose vampires are real (in the story) and start getting their feelings hurt when they are excluded from society. Suppose they clamor for safe spaces against verbal abuse. Already some funny scenes are coming to mind. Then they stage a movement about shaming people who stereotype vampires for their need, at no fault of their own, to suck human blood. As the scenes come to mind, it starts getting funnier. Imagine a bunch of vampires chanting "Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!" against healthy people who still hog all their own blood and object to the feeding habits of vampires. And the marches against institutionalized antivampirism. And, of course, we have to come up with a new language to refer to vampires that is more inclusive, one that appeals to our collective social conscience and is not hurtful. Something like Victims of Sanguine Dependency or VF's, meaning members of the Vital Fluid culture. Vampires must become part of the social fabric and no longer be discriminated against because they can't help it they were born that way. One vampire's human blood snack is your quinoa, black bean and radish salad with avocado lime vinaigrette, so stop being a dick to them. I could go on... Now what if I tell you there are people really doing this? Such as academic studies in peer reviewed scientific journals? And they are serious? All this could be great fun until we realize that the current fad among the Silicon Valley superrich is to get transfusions with the blood of young people, supposedly to reverse aging. Suddenly the funny went out of it... This is the kissing cousin of Rand's book by Dr. Floyd Ferris in Atlas Shrugged to prepare the population for obedience: Why Do You Think You Think? If the bad guys can get people to seriously accept that vampires exist in reality, then care about the feelings of said vampires to the point of sanctioning scientific studies and, potentially, minority protection laws, the bad guys will have taken over their minds. All that will be left is to bring out the zombies to eat their brains. Like the lady in the video said, she feels dumber for even discussing this issue... Michael
  10. For some damn reason, the following portrait is being shown all over the web together with the Clinton portrait in the opening post. I haven't thought through the commonalities deep enough to understand why this is so funny, but it is. Dayaamm! Michael
  11. Just in case people get turned off at the beginning of the video by a kind of stupid "big idea" claim Skelter made, here's how I understand it. Adam Skelter is a storyteller, one who works in Hollywood. Part of his training is to appeal to the lizard brain (fight-flight, sex, curiosity, and so on). This video is nonfiction, so I believe he is using the same approach as a storyteller. You have to get people's attention before they will allow themselves to get into the story. In the case of nonfiction, you have to get people's attention before they will even listen to what comes next. One of the ways to do this (and this is a taught technique in copywriting) is to present a controversial challenge. So when Skelter dramatically says "Everyone is religious, including you," he is trying to prompt curiosity through a controversial challenge, at least I believe that is what he is trying to do. But he flops. The problem is that boilerplate Christian sermons talk about how people think they don't believe in God, but really do, etc., etc., etc. This is so old, nobody cares. It's like a used car salesman routine, a template around an artificial claim with presuppositions about the customer to attract the suckers and weed out everyone else. It does not stir the juices except those of the converted or the suckers. Substance-wise, once you see the video, you realize converting unbelievers in the name of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, is not what Skelter is about. He is about redefining religion as a thinking pattern in general that evolved (i.e., an epistemological issue). But by then, he has turned off a good portion of his audience. I attribute this error more to blindly following a copywriting template rather than anything else. The next bad thing he does is tell you how you are going to think by the end of the video. I can almost see him trying to include NLP embedded commands in his copy, but once again, he misses something critical. When you tell someone openly that they are wrong, this hits a fundamental cognitive bias squarely in the sore spot and turns on a listener's defense mechanisms like an on-off switch. After that lousy opening, the video starts becoming very, very interesting. If you can ignore the parts about religion per se and focus on the epistemological patterns he covers, especially about the nature of beliefs, etc., you will find an outside-the-box approach that you might not be familiar with, one with great value in identifying why many intelligent people believe in things that are nonsensical to other intelligent people. Michael
  12. Words of wisdom from Lionel. What really happened based on what the public has seen? The public hasn't seen anything other than what gatekeepers tell us. Lionel says: Remember, Lionel not only like conspiracy theories, he loves conspiracy theorists. He actually loves them (as do I). He just calls on people to keep observable facts as opposed to dot-connecting separate in their rhetoric. Michael
  13. Dennis, I enjoy Scott's breakdowns and persuasion techniques. I don't always find myself convinced of his oversimplified analyses of current events. Nor do I agree with his social positions (for example, in this video alone, he expressed disdain for boxing and would like to see it eliminated from entertainment--which shows a lack of understanding of human nature--just blank out the animal part, or whatever part one finds distasteful, and one can mold society to one's whims kind of thinking that is very common on the left). In the Epstein case, Scott pegs everything to the incompetence of organizations and the cunning of Epstein. It's a good Houdini story, but it totally eliminates the Deep State and ruling class actors as having any input--a total blank out (with his typical caveat of "I don't know, maybe..." followed by the BUT eraser ). If you leave out a major bad guy--the proverbial elephant in the room--in a murder mystery, it's hard to tell a convincing story. And in this case, Hanlon's razor does not convince me that the bad guys just sat on the sideline as passive spectators when their risk was enormous. Scott reminds me of someone trying to explain that we should discount bear mauling as a serious threat to humanity, so we can safely ignore that bear that is running right at us. As to persuasion, whenever you think about Scott, don't you imagine his prediction powers to be awesome? I think it would be interesting to go back through his work and look at his actual predictions. I've noticed that at times he has to modify them along the way to keep the claim they are predictions. He has successfully sold the image of him being a master predictor and gathered quite a following. That, to me doesn't say as much about his predicting powers as it does his persuasion powers. Michael