• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Peter last won the day on August 2

Peter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

170 Excellent

About Peter

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 2

Contact Methods

  • MSN

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Peter D. Taylor
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

21,331 profile views
  1. Lou Dobbs is talking with the President on the phone at 5:30pm. Trump caught Obama and Biden spying on his campaign. He will let the justice department handle it because laws were broken. It's a job trying to translate the following but his approval ratings are 49/49 but only 36 percent of those approving, strongly approve. BUT of those disapproving 44 percent strongly disapprove. In other words the Trump haters, really hate. Gee. What do they have against him? Rasmussen Poll. Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Tuesday, August 04, 2020. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove. The latest figures include 36% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 44% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.
  2. Fox interview guest. Who will Biden pick? He wants to bring back some of the Obama glory so he will pick Susan Rice. Nasa TV is showing the capsule descending with all four parachutes deployed.
  3. Per Trump Campaign senior advisor. Trump is not delaying the election but he is speculating about it. The election is on Nov. 3rd. He thinks write in voting would be a fraudulent waste.
  4. Thanks! I don’t plan on checking to see if my doctor at the VA or the doctor I go to for a checkup and my CPAP supply prescription will give me a prescription for that drug but I will continue to pay attention to coronavirus news. And I will be on top of any vaccines approved for the virus. I am going to a small family gathering today, but I am trying to self-isolate, as is my wife. Peter From Fox News. Australia declares 'State of Disaster' in Victoria after coronavirus cases spike continues. The state recorded almost 700 new cases overnight from Saturday. A “State of Disaster” was declared for the Australian state of Victoria after almost 700 new cases of coronavirus were recorded overnight, according to reports . . . . “If you’ve got that many cases – and they’re not just in metropolitan Melbourne, they’re in regional Victoria as well – if you have that many cases of community transmission you must assume you have even more and on that basis you can no longer be confident that you’ve got a precise understanding of how much virus is there,” Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews said during a press briefing . . . .
  5. Unabashed. You remind me of Jack Reacher.
  6. I looked for the key word, “Sanger” and found these two oldies. From: PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: French humor Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:40:19 EDT. Here's a Jewish one. Enjoy! REB ==================================================== A reporter goes to Israel to cover the fighting. She is looking for something emotional and positive and of human interest. Something like that guy in Sarajevo who risked his life to play the Cello everyday in the town square. In Jerusalem, she heard about an old Jew who had been going to the Wailing Wall to pray, twice a day, very day, for a long, long time. So she went to check it out. She goes to the Wailing Wall and there he is! She watches him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turns to leave, she approaches him for an interview. "Rebecca Smith, CNN News. Sir, how long have you been coming to the Wailing Wall and praying?" "For about 50 years." "What do you pray for?" "For peace between the Jews and the Arabs. For all the hatred to stop. For all of our children to grow up in safety and friendship." "How do you feel after doing this for 50 years?" "Like I'm talking to a fucking wall." From: PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Fwd: Being a good Democrat Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 01:59:41 EDT. Subject: What it Takes to be a Good Democrat Author: KELLY SPEARMAN 1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding. 2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex. 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat, than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists. 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs. 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural. 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. 8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression (think about it), and governments create prosperity. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars. 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison. 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racists, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't. 16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady (don't even think about it!). 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House. 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States. 21. You have to believe that this letter is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. ============================================ Cheers! REB Roger E. Bissell, musician-writer
  7. Did Doctor Fauci recommend us to not “mask debate” in public? Is the following lighter side info? Oh the poor birds: the Jays, the Cardinals, the Orioles. “Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?” Will the same catastrophe strike pro and college football? July 31, 2020. From The Guardian: Major League Baseball has postponed Friday afternoon’s game between the St Louis Cardinals and Milwaukee Brewers after multiple members of the visiting Cardinals tested positive for Covid-19, according to an ESPN report. The Cardinals played in Minnesota on Tuesday and Wednesday before a scheduled day off Thursday. The Twins hosted Cleveland on Thursday night, meaning the Indians likely used the same visiting clubhouse as St Louis. Minnesota are scheduled to host the Indians again Friday night. The game, which was scheduled to begin at 2.10pm Eastern time, is the latest impacted by Covid-19 and follows an outbreak of the virus with the Miami Marlins that resulted in an entire week’s worth of their games postponed as a result. The postponement means six major league teams – or 20% of MLB’s 30 teams – will been sidelined on Friday due to positive coronavirus tests. Two other scheduled games involving the Marlins, Washington Nationals, Toronto Blue Jays and Philadelphia Phillies had already been postponed due to the fallout from positive tests.
  8. One plus one equals two. Oh yeah? Prove it. Some old letters on what is “proof?” Sheesh. I was a bit disjointed 20 years ago but now I am fine. Joke. Peter From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Scientific Determinism Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 04:09:32 GMT. George H. Smith wrote an excellent letter but I will only reply to one of his points at this time: (8) In short, we should always bear in mind the crucial difference between science per se and the philosophy of science. The latter is not itself a "scientific" discipline, but is a branch of philosophy. end of quote By asserting that all science was subsumed under philosophy and Objectivism, (and stretching it a bit, and fishing I was sure I would tick off Dennis May sufficiently to answer me. Instead, George answered, saying he Disagreed with some points of mine, but that he actually Agreed with me, just a bit. George, are you being culturally assimilated? I've wondered if you are doing some investigative journalism (perhaps even a hatchet job) about these quaint folks, who call themselves Objectivists. Maybe you won't burn us, after becoming friendly with us? (If so, imagine Sally Fields saying, "You like us! You genuinely like us!") The more I thought about the crucial difference between science per se and the philosophy of science, I decided my Big Point, was hinted at in some recent letters questioning the difference between Randian Objectivism (Rand's own words) and Objectivism (which includes Rand's own words and philosophical words written by others, about Objectivism.) And that got me thinking about: If *it* is objectively true, then *it* is provable using Objective (Aristotelian, Randian, and Scientific methods (observable, verifiable and repeatable). In contrast a strictly linguistic assertion that human epistemology is deterministic, or that the earth is 6000 years old, or that 13 angels can dance on the head of a pin is provable if the bible is used as the sole reference. Though these false assumptions may be logically true, based on false basic premises, they are not true in fact. But I am just a cave-man philosopher (who is not laughing at his most basic values, BB, just being objective.) Let me quote from the "Masters," while keeping in mind that Objectivism is a cohesive whole. Selective, non - consecutive quotes from OPAR by Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand, pages 112-120. According to Objectivism, epistemology is necessary for practical purposes, as a guide to man in the proper use of his conceptual faculty. We are ready to concretize this claim. We can now begin to identify the rules men must follow in their thinking if knowledge, rather than error or delusion, is their goal. These rules can be condensed into one general principle: thinking, to be valid, must adhere to reality. Or, in the memorable words of the old "Dragnet" TV series, which can serve as the motto of all reality-oriented thought: "Just give us the facts, ma'am." But how does one reach "just the facts"? The answer lies in the concept of *objectivity*; it requires that one grasp the full philosophic meaning and implications of this concept. When you grasp this concept, you will have an invaluable tool enabling you to assess and, if necessary, improve the quality of your own thinking. You will also understand why, out of all the possibilities, Ayn Rand chose to call her philosophy, "Objectivism." . . . Since definitions ‘are' condensations of observed data, however, they are determined by such data; they are not arbitrary; they flow from the facts of the case. In this respect, as we have seen, definitions are "empirical" statements, and reality *is* the standard of what is essential. Definitions are statements of factual data - as condensed by a human consciousness in accordance with the needs of a human method of cognition. Like concepts, therefore, essences are products of a volitional relationship between existence and consciousness, they too (properly formed) are *objective.* . . . As Miss Rand points out, it is mandatory to conceptualize certain types of concretes, including: (a) the perceptual concretes with which men deal daily, represented by the first level of abstractions; (b) new discoveries of science; ( c ) new man-made objects which differ in their essential characteristics from the previously known objects (e.g., "television"); (d) complex human relationships involving combinations of physical and psychological behavior (e.g., "marriage," "law," "justice"). These four categories represent existents with which men have to deal constantly, in many different contexts, from many different aspects, either in daily physical action or, more crucially, in mental action and further study. The mental weight of carrying these existents in one's head by means of perceptual images or lengthy verbal descriptions is such that no human mind could handle it. The need of condensation, of unit-reduction, is obvious in such cases. . . . "Proof" is the process of establishing truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, i.e. ultimately, to sensory evidence. Such reduction is the only means man has of discovering the relationship between non-axiomatic propositions and the facts of reality. end of quotes Now to tie it all together. The difference between Randian Objectivism (Rand's own words) and Objectivism (which includes Rand's own words and the philosophical words which will be written by others, about Objectivism, ON INTO THE FUTURE,) and asserting that all science was subsumed under philosophy and Objectivism - My fellow Atlanteans, am I stretching it a bit? Is this an end run? Scientific facts, at their most basic level are always consistent with Objectivism, but not strict Randian Objectivism which, though true within its context, cannot be infallibly true. If Objectivism is open, and to the greatest extent possible INFALLIBLE, AS IT IS PROVED, WITHIN A CONTEXT ON INTO INFINITY, then we will rarely be wrong. Am I making sense, or am I saying, "I can have my cake and eat it too?" Peter Taylor Again, I will repeat, Causality pertains to EVERYTHING in the universe except sentient, rational, volitionally conscious HUMANS. quote (first from Leonard, then from Ayn,) OPAR page 64: The principle of causality does not apply to consciousness, however, in the same way that is applies to matter. In regard to matter, there is no issue of choice; to be caused is to be necessitated. In regard to the (higher-level) actions of a volitional consciousness, however, (continuing the sentence with a quote from Ayn Rand,) "'to be caused' does not mean 'to be necessitated.'" And "Man chooses the causes that shape his actions." From: "William Dwyer" To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: Is proof agent-relative? (was "Does proof require a Sandra ASS U MEd ...) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:32:14 -0800. Sandra Mendoza wrote: "As my hero, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote: *If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." Andrew Taranto replied, "Very interesting... because Antony Flew took pains to discuss, in _Thinking Straight_ (and the latter version, _How to Think Straight_) that one does not ~prove to~, one only proves. When someone says, 'Prove X to me,' he means to say, 'convince me of X'; but then proof doesn't necessarily play a role. (Unfortunately, my copies are at home, so I can't provide specific cites.)" Based on Andrew's summary, I don't think that Flew's analysis does justice to the concept of "proof"; on the contrary, his analysis would appear to be self-contradictory. If, as he says "proof" doesn't necessarily play a role in "proving" X to someone, then one ~hasn't~ "PROVED" X to him; one has simply "convinced" him of X. One can convince someone of something by a means other than proof, e.g., by sophistry or propaganda. If a person says, "Prove it to me," he is not simply asking to be convinced; he is asking to be convinced ~by an objectively valid justification~. So, I think that proof does indeed require a person ~to whom~ one proves something, even if that person is only the prover himself. In other words, proof presupposes a consciousness whose requirements of knowledge are satisfied by the fulfillment of certain epistemological criteria. Therefore, if a person asks for proof, he is indeed asking that something be proved ~to~ him, because he is demanding that it satisfy his own understanding of the truth according to rational and objective criteria. To put it in standard Objectivist lingo, proof is objective, but not intrinsic! Although proof is certainly not arbitrary or subjective, it still requires a mind to receive and understand it. The idea that proof is always proof ~to~ someone was also the position of Michael Scriven, whom I had as a professor of philosophy at U.C. Berkeley many years ago! He was a pretty good philosopher and has written quite a good book on epistemology, which I used to own but have since lost track of. Bill From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Is proof agent-relative? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:41:45 -0600. William has written on a topic which has fascinated me since my first geometry class. I will be the first to admit I have never felt comfortable with mathematical or physics proofs regardless of the thousands I have either read, regurgitated, or done. Proof requires auxiliary assumptions which must also be supported by proof. At some point you fall back upon the most basic axioms. Your tree of logic is only as sound as your correct inclusion of all relevant assumptions. My lack of comfort comes from observing the many times errors have been discovered in proofs years later because of in-correct assumptions, neglect of required assumptions, technical errors, missed steps, proof by intimidation [appeal to authority], and any number of other errors in logic. Proof is the holy grail in advancing rational arguments. It is often an elusive goal and very much dependent upon a qualified receptive mind. A thousand qualified rational people can look at the same proof year after year without detecting an error. The person who comes along and discovers an error is to be congratulated but every time it happens I again feel uncomfortable with proofs. I guess proof always remains provisional in my mind. I would greatly appreciate Michael Hardy [as resident mathematician] jumping in on this. Dennis May From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Is proof agent-relative? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:42:46 -0600 Dennis May wrote, "The person who comes along and discovers an error is to be congratulated but every time it happens I again feel uncomfortable with proofs. I guess proof always remains provisional in my mind." The answer to Dennis's discomfort is "contextual knowledge", and it would be advisable to understand the context of "truth". This belongs to the issue of epistemology - "how do we know when the truth we know is actually true?" Actually it is when there is no evidence that contradicts what we know to be true. In other words, everything we know is evidence that supports [proves] that it IS true - and we know nothing that contradicts this knowledge. This is "certain knowledge". An error is a different thing. It means that one has not validly proven that one's information is true - or it means that one has not applied all the facts and principles one does know to be true. In other words, an error, a mistake, occurs when one has muddled one's thinking. An evasion occurs when one has refused to identify and acknowledge the truth one does in fact know. However, someone may discover new evidence that in effect sets up a new context of knowledge - the new evidence adds new proofs of information adding a new perspective on old knowledge that was true in that earlier context of knowledge. This only means that knowledge of truth is ~open-ended~ - meaning that one does already know one can always learn new things about new discoveries. This does not contradict what one did know, it merely adds new truths proven by new knowledge. This does not make proof or truth provisional". It is "contextual" knowledge. This should never make one doubt one's knowledge - unless there IS new evidence proven to be true. In fact, it IS just a new contextual certainty of knowledge. Dennis, it is not that proof is always provisional, it IS that knowledge of truth is contextual -- and whatever one knows to be true IS certain knowledge of reality. Get it? I'm not offering a formal presentation here, this is simply an off-the cuff expression of what I learned about objective contextuality. Ellen M.
  9. To me the idea of refusing to wear or not wear a face mask is not so simple. What would a libertarian do? A store is private property so if you do business with them, you morally and legally should follow the stores’ rules or not enter. What if a mask is not convenient to wear, makes your breathing harder, or you forgot it? Perhaps you should get curb side delivery like Walmart’s provides. And is it worth the effort if you are defying a store policy? Is it worth being charged with trespassing? Is it worth people yelling at you, or refusing to serve you? I saw some guidelines for eating at a restaurant even though the seating is still outdoors. They recommend patrons keep their masks on until eating begins and the waiters should keep their masks on at all times. Governmental regulations, whether local, state, or federal are a different matter. Remember reading about Prohibition, segregation laws, and laws against women doing a lot of things in municipal places? This is meant to be humorous but even to this day women have to wear a top to cover their boobies even though men do not. Oh, the injustice of it all! School districts at the county, city, or state level make it mandatory for your kids to get shots to go to a public school. But after the elementary level I don’t think higher schools check pupil’s health charts.
  10. Michael wrote on another thread, “Watch Rand Paul. If he allows his kids to get the shot (he said he would if he judges it's OK), I imagine it will be relatively safe.” That is good advice. I think The Eye Doc stays on top of scientific data. And what a coincidence. His name is Rand! I saw on the news that September may be the start of some large scale trials of vaccines. Until then, ‘Play safe!” I remember stories about 20 years ago of parents who refused to get their children mandatory shots even though some were required for entry to school. So, they home taught and falsely claimed the shots would cause death and injury on a large scale. That was false. Most of the parents DID let their kids go to high school if I remember right. Where did they get their data? Their pastors or reverends? Their irrational relatives? The internet stories that supported their cookie “self-evident truths?” I think the idea that people like Fauci, the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of doctors and nurses who see Covid-19 every day, the CDC, and even drug company’s raw data is a manufactured part of a vast left, or right wing, or elitist conspiracy is damaging to everyone’s health, physical and mental. Stay alert. Look at the world wide and country by country estimates of Coronavirus cases and deaths. Is Brazil lying? Is Israel lying? Is America lying? The one country I am sure is lying is China. They have been caught in lies many times. And I would not trust any info coming out via official sources from any totalitarian countries like Russia or North Korea. I do not trust any unverified info from the likes of Schumer or Pelosi and I take what Trump says with a grain of salt, because sometimes he is joking, or just passing on something he heard. On the good side Trump is not a stuffy “official” politician and I will support him with a skeptical look on my face on Covid-19. And I will vote Trump in 2020. It’s what Rand would do. Ayn, not Rand Paul, but I trust Rand Paul too. Peter
  11. I wonder if Italy will get the PC virus and take down all the statues of past emperors?
  12. If something new comes out i prefer others become the lab rats. When it is better proven to not harm you then i will get it. However, in this instance I think i will absorb the news and if it seems OK i will get the shot. I also think i have a bunch of shots due from the VA and before my next appointment i will ask for them to be ready, (and the coronavirus shot if they can give them all in one session). I try to type in the dark with a darkened screen so i can get to sleep but i end up correction myself too much. How about you? I suppose a pragmatist will get it to retain his title.
  13. If i were doing the deepfake i would have given her two horns, barely covered by her hair.