Brant Gaede

Members
  • Content Count

    24,757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by Brant Gaede

  1. It simply has to do with my personal taste in such matters, Angie. If caricatures were "fair" they'd be no fun and nobody would do them or be interested in them. Of course Biddle deserves what Victor gave him though I really don't get the Diana Hsieh allusion or why she's depicted nude. I don't care that she can't take it. Maybe that's the payoff, that she can't. It's not that I'm prudish; it's just that I don't have a caricaturist's sensibility in such matters. I use words, words that can be responded to. A lot of people on these lists are at war with each other deeply in a way that I'm not a
  2. Victor, I don't particularly like your caricature. The one you did of Linz was a lot better. And the nude was untoward to say the least. --Brant
  3. We don't know that North Korea had a successful nuclear test. 550 lbs of explosive? Something shook the ground--apparently. --Brant
  4. Dennis: "George's argument" -- What is the reference? "Objectivist argument" -- What is the reference? (You did somewhat better here than with the previous.) "Dennis's argument" -- I assume it is the "Objectivist argument?" I think you did very poorly with George's position. He supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. So did I. --Brant
  5. If who to kill is a philosophical question then let the philosophers do the killing and bring the soldiers home. Mr. Biddle seems to think he's Capt. Kirk on the starship Enterprise threatening the aliens on the planet below if they don't do this or that. Did Walter Mitty ever fantasize he was God? The thought of trying to argue with such stupidity and ignorance makes my head want to explode. It's "invincible ignorance" anyway. Hence, religious blather. Michael did the best thing by letting the man be hanged by his own words. --Brant
  6. So, Michael thinks I'm not a lover? That's much worse than SOLOP! (But why am I so sensitive about this?) ---Brant
  7. I hate to mention this, but by virtue of my stunning brain power, whenever I post on any thread that that's an automatic hijack to whatever I have decided to pontificate about. You youngsteers (not a sic) have no idea about who's really controlling things around here. B) --Brant
  8. The problem with what the United States is doing now in the Middle East--never mind the war on terror; the war on terror is something else re 9/11--could easily mean a greater conflict later on than what is now going down, in response to a grievous insult, real or imagined. Such would probably involve war with Iran with Pakistan now on the more distant horizon another threat for an even bigger war. Civilians would suffer grievously even without being directly targeted by bombs, missiles and bullets. The US has dissipated its power and ability to deal with the various situations that can arise
  9. PsyOps It is legitimate in war to target civilians with psychological warfare. --Brant
  10. As a US Senator McCarthy had no power to enforce censorship and violate civil liberties. Most of his power was de facto, not de jure. He helped whip up an anti-communist hysteria with irresponsible allegations and thus helped discredit anti-communism. Barbara once said, I believe, that Ayn Rand was ambivalent about the HUAC hearings she participated in. --Brant
  11. How can I be "reminded" when I was never "minded" in the first place? If you want to make a case for collective guilt go ahead and try; that's the first order of business. Don't pretend the job has been done. It is interesting how you let the Muslims off the collective-guilt hook, but not Americans. If Ayn Rand was against anything it was this sort of thing. --Brant
  12. Dan was recently awarded a full scholarship to study at OAC (Objectivist Academic Center) of ARI. Several of us are harshly criticizing Craig Biddle and other ARI intellectuals. You draw your own conclusions. (I am still waiting to see if his coaches will let him answer my questions...) Michael What are they going to teach him? --Brant
  13. Then when the US invaded Mexico before the Civil War the Mexican government had the "right" to drop nuclear bombs on the US if it had had any until the US would never again ever be a threat to the "long-term freedom" of the people of Mexico? --Brant
  14. There are Objectivists who want four things: --War--and to eat it too. --Objectivism--and to eat it too. They misunderstand or do not care to understand "Atlas Shrugged" and egoism. They think that at the end of the novel there wasn't anything left but Galt's Gulch. John Galt did not activate "Project X." Ragnar did not attack universities. Dagny did not gun down college students. Francisco did not assassinate Catholic priests. You cannot use Objectivism to justify genocide and sleep well at night. But you can fantasize about it, even though it's not Objectivism in the real world--yet. Maybe
  15. Angie, Ayn Rand would agree with you. Me too. It's a matter of self esteem, so is freedom. --Brant
  16. I'm sorry, Dan, but there is no proper way to answer this question since it is all theoretical and the premises questionable. There is no way to know that A and B could ever justify C and it's doubtful that real-life situations would help either. One can even argue that in WWII the various mass allied bombings were not targeting civilians but the cities they lived in. Maybe not successfully or very well, but one can argue this interminably. The Mongol's once conquered a city in central asia and slaughtered its 1,000,000 inhabitants. Freedom had nothing to do with this war of conquest. Be we Mo
  17. Andre, The United States is not at war with Iran. If the United States goes to war then what are legitimate military targets will be decided depending on the decided nature and scope of the war. Some clerics may or may not be deemed worthy targets for arrest. The West is at war with Islamists only metaphorically. You don't cause casualties out of a metaphorical war. BTW, "the first enemy civilians" to be targeted to be "terminated"? How long is your list? --Brant
  18. Dennis, When you fight ideas with bombs they become powerful. If they are right ideas they become even more powerful. The only way to succeed with this is the general if not complete destruction of human consciousness. But then you are rejecting Rand's central thesis: the impotence of evil. You can bomb instruments of evil out of existence and sometimes that is precisely what needs to be done. But evil itself is only as powerful as good makes it. The terrorists who flew those planes into the WTC came out of a culture that couldn't even land those planes or take them off. They attended US fligh
  19. Barbara, Soldiers kill, generally, so they won't be killed--or their buddies won't be killed. Hand to hand combat is unbelievably ferocious; everybody is trying to live--living means killing. I knew someone, slightly, in my high school, who graduated a year or two after I did. The same month I came back from Vietnam he was a Marine Corps machine gunner in the Mekong Delta--also where I had been--and threw himself on a grenade to save his friends. His death, his name was Jedh Barker, earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is only after the battle, when you move among the dead and find
  20. Michael, What branch of service did that member of the US armed forces occupy? Did he actually engage in combat and joyously kill people? Were you able to verify to any extent that he wasn't a phony, a liar, a wannabe? Many young soldiers start out with but don't keep such an attitude. The most dangerous soldiers in the world are 8-12 year old males. They'll kill anything and anybody in any imaginable circumstance. This was demonstrated in Africa a while back. I met two soldiers who actually enjoyed killing people. One was young and stupid about it, but they were combatants. The other was an o
  21. Military tactics are justified to defeat an enemy, not to justify one's philosophy. If the latter, then in the name of Objectivism or Nazism or religion or anything else anything can go. If an Objectivist is elected President, mirabile dictu, we all know how rational and pro-life on earth Objectivists are, and the U.S. is in the middle of, say, this war on terrorism then one can imagine Him/Her coming to the "rational" conclusion that it is philosophically and militarily necessary, for the "long-term freedom" of Americans to nuke all Muslim population concentrations. This is tribalism or relig
  22. Dan, Your use of "action" is incorrect for it implies it isn't a military tactic. It is a military tactic. If you want to best present your case you need to ungarble this formulation. --Brant
  23. I'm going to take my Capuletti brochure to Walgreens and scan the contents onto a CD and mail it to MSK so he can post it on OL. I'm Internet primitive. I can't even do links (nor have I tried to learn). Busybody: "Brant. We have to learn how to do links." Brant: "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me!" --Brant
  24. Is it perhaps the same painting that I discussed here? That's not the one, Dragonfly, but it looks like he had some trouble there as well. I'll see if I can get the title for you. --Brant