Peter

Members
  • Posts

    9,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Peter last won the day on October 5

Peter had the most liked content!

About Peter

  • Birthday January 2

Previous Fields

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

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    solarwind47@hotmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

22,945 profile views

Peter's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

289

Reputation

  1. From page twelve of “The Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right:” “Alisa’s most enthusiastic audience for these early stories were her two sisters. Nora the youngest, shared her introversion and artistic inclinations. Her specialty was witty caricatures of her family that blended man and beast. Alisa and Nora were inseparable, calling themselves Dact 1, and Dact 2, after the winged dinosaurs of Arthur Conan Doyle’s fantastic adventure story, “The Lost World.” The middle sister Natasha, a skilled pianist, was outgoing and social. Both Nora and Natasha shared a keen appreciation for the elder sister’s creativity, and at bedtime Alisa regaled them with her latest tales.” If the Czars were bad, what horrors awaited them after The Communist Revolution! A closet for an apartment, a young Ayn teaching red soldiers to read, carrying water up to their apartment in buckets and no electricity. “Rusty nails on the walls, showed the places, where old paintings had hung. So little food, she was a hungry adolescent girl. Ayn remembers begging her Mom for (literally) their last dried chick pea to stave off hunger. From Page 14: “At parties hostesses could offer their guests only dubious delicacies, such as potato skin cookies and tea with saccharine tablets instead of sugar.” And now we have a President and a progressive philosophy of Government that extols as a virtue, *The Redistribution of Wealth.* and the over taxation of the wealthy to pay for their indulgences. What again, has happened to America? Trump 2024.
  2. Sen. Roy Blunt said on Sunday that former President Donald Trump should dwell on the future rather than the past. "The best thing that President Trump could do to help us win majorities in 2022 is talk about the future, and he can be an important part of that — this ‘22 effort. But I think it’s better off to talk about the future than to focus on the past," Blunt said on NBC's "Meet the Press." 2022-2024. I agree. Get elected!! And if he is President in 2024 he can do some deep digging into 2020, if he still wants to.
  3. I do not live under a bridge . . . You're a troll . . . no I'm not . . . yes you are . . . no . . . You could put me on your do not read list but then you won't know what I am saying about you. joke. I thought those old letters from you were excellent.
  4. I was interested in seeing if anyone who is more familiar with the story, knew if the guy mentioned was Q. I figured the other words in the blurb would tick someone off. It is near Halloween and at 2:35 it is 78 degrees. Me like global warming and homemade chocolate chip cookies. Signed, The Cookie Monster.
  5. WASHINGTON (AP) — Relatives of more than two dozen American hostages and wrongful detainees held overseas told President Joe Biden in a letter on Monday that they questioned his administration's commitment to bringing their loved ones home. end quote And there is still a problem getting people out of Afghanistan. Those church volunteers being held by Haitian criminals is a lousy situation. Is it crying time again, or bombing time again, with a ground strike on the criminals?
  6. Here on Delmarva we are hunkering down for a surprise, "nor-easter." Thunder storms this afternoon and then high winds and inches of rain. There is supposed to be a test of the alarm system at 4pm too, with a script traveling across TV screens and fire sirens going off everywhere at once. That could be frightening if you notice sirens coming from all the points on the compass. I might have thought it was a tornado or a nuclear attack from China and/or Russia.
  7. Who is Q? TC seems to know. Todd Carney at Real clear Politics: . . . In Arizona, even after the controversial audit proved former President Donald Trump’s election beliefs wrong, several state Republicans are continuing to push the claim that the election was rigged. Political activist Ron Watkins is running in a congressional election in the state. Many believe Watkins is the anonymous poster “Q” who fueled the QAnon movement . . . .
  8. I was quoting a headline, I suppose, without reading the "grit." Sorry about that. I get it! You're costuming up as Wild Bill Hickock this Halloween.
  9. It’s a slow TV day if you don’t watch football. If “Lost” was once again in reruns I would probably watch it. On MeTV I am watching an early episode of Gilligan’s Island. They think they have found a treasure chest, but they can’t get it open and Mr. Howell and Gilligan are both insisting that they own it. Mr. Howell is insisting it is his even though Gilligan found it because Gilligan is in his “employ.” If you ever watch it look at that beautiful island in the distance. Gilligan's Island Wiki: Three different real-life separate islands were used in the opening credits of the series. The First season black-and-white version was Sandy Cay, a 3-acre island near the Bahamas in the Caribbean. It is now one of the many destinations featured on Disney Cruise Lines, most likely being Castaway Cay, but it is unknown which of the islands were filmed. The island seen from a distance during the Second and Third Season color episodes was Mokuoloe ("Coconut Island") near Oahu which covers 28-acres in size. The pilot, however, was filmed at Moloa'a beach on the north of Kaua'i in Hawaii, and the Second and Third episode opening credits scenes that show the wreck of the SS Minnow on the lagoon, an obvious continuity error, was the flooded parking lot at the studio in Los Angeles.
  10. I am always careful. I don't shake hands if I can avoid it. I stay out of large rooms with a lot of people in them, to avoid germs. So, perhaps invincible was too broad a term. I am careful. Even before Covid going to a movie theatre was tough to do. I hated it when people sat behind me and I breathed their germs. Ugh! And what if someone coughed? I have never seen a reason "to mingle" a lot. "I yam what I yam," as Popeye said.
  11. Hmmmm. The moral complexities of emergencies. I can’t remember if these have shown up lately so here they are, maybe again. Peter From below: No more damn fool questions if you stop writing damn fool arguments, ya hear! ES From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: A Last Word for the Moment on Rights Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:27:51 -0500. Trying to analyze my emotional reactions to the prudent predator scenes we've been discussing, I've realized that part of what bothers me here is that sneaking into movie theaters, etc., seems so ignoble. If there's one thing the early Objectivist movement did have, despite its numerous and acknowledged flaws, it had an emphasis on trying to lead a heroic life, a life of high character. Thus it seems to me so antithetic to the *spirit* of everything Ayn Rand stood for to think of her work being interpreted as sanctioning a lifestyle of "prudent" predating. I find this esthetically offensive. I probably won't make any friends on this list by saying that, but it's something I had to get off my chest. And now I'm going to have to drop out of the rights discussion again for the next month or thereabouts: other demands on my time are looming. Ellen From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Why be moral when you have cancer? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:24:17 -0500 I, too, lack the time to get into this again, but I would point out to Gayle that the possibility of pursuing *rational* self-interest -- which is the only form of "self-interest" pursuit which Rand's ethics upholds -- is rendered inoperative in a social context where the principle of rights is not honored. Turn the thing around, Gayle: what you're saying is that your pursuit of *your* *rational* self-interest is legitimately at the mercy of anyone who happens to feel like killing you. Some ethics! Ellen S From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Why be moral when you have cancer? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:35:37 -0500. Bill, as he has multiple times before, quotes Rand as saying: "The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action...." She does say this, but I notice, Bill, that you *always* leave out of consideration the full context (read the WHOLE Introduction to VOS!) and *always* leave out the "but" which immediately follows. Here's the quote including the "but." "The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action. BUT [my emphasis] his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life -- and, therefore, is applicable ONLY [her emphasis] in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest." Let's not delete the part of a Rand quote (or of any quote) which happens to be inconvenient for one's thesis. ES From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Why be moral when you have cancer? Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:08 -0500. Bill responded to a post of mine today with basically the answer I expected, but, fact is, I don't think Bill's answer holds in the context of his own previous posts about rights. (See his full reply below; for his earlier presentations see the archives.) We're seeing here a repeat of an argument which long-standing list members have gone round and round on, the argument as to whether or not "egoism" is the foundation of Rand's ethics. Bill has argued in the past that the sentence "[t]he Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always by the beneficiary of his action" is the "hallmark" of the Objectivist ethics. I disagree, and I think that even her Introduction to VOS can't correctly be interpreted thus. Precisely the central thrust of this Introduction is that a beneficiary criterion of ethics is *wrong*. This applies to *any* beneficiary criterion, whether altruist or egoist. Everything Rand says against altruists adopting a beneficiary criterion applies equally against egoists doing so. What I think Bill's view comes down to, as I've explained in the past (please read the archives if interested), is that sometimes it's ok to sacrifice others to oneself. But I don't read Rand's analysis even of emergency situations as supporting this conclusion. The whole subject is one which is obviously very troublesome for interpreters of Rand. It's also a subject which I'm not desirous of debating at length (psychology, where I *don't* see eye-to-eye with Rand, is my area of major concern). Thus I'm going to step back out of a debate which I stepped into against my better judgment. I'll merely add that I agree so strongly with George Smith's interpretations of Rand, I feel safe in adding "ditto" to his posts. Ellen S. From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Why be moral when you have cancer? Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:16:24 -0500. Bill says: << "You apparently don't think that stealing someone's property to further your own interests entails "sacrificing others to oneself". >> Read carefully the way you put that and then tell me you aren't opening the door miles wide to Luka. Would you like to rephrase your question to me? >I don't think you're grasping what's at issue between Luka and me. He's >objecting to my argument for individual rights, which is based on the >idea that the benefits of freedom depend on each person's willingness to >respect the rights of others even when he can profit in the short run by >violating them. He doesn't think that's egoistic. It might be "egoistic," a la you, but it isn't a good argument, and isn't Rand's argument. See George's posts on that one. He's been doing a great job. >I don't think you've been following our discussion very closely. Bill, I was watching the whole history of how Luka would develop implications from details in your posts. I really do recommend studying the archives!! Ellen S. From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Moral Complexities: (was Emergencies) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:13:13 -0500 [Sorry if this post appears twice; it duplicates a post which hasn't yet shown up.] I'll interject a personal comment here -- this isn't to be taken as a statement on how Rand would have analyzed things. If I were the person in the shipwreck scenario, I'd think of my helping myself to food from a convenient deserted house as borrowing on the presumed benevolence of the lender and with every intention of repaying the loan. If it were a case of forcibly taking the food of some other shipwreck survivor, I wouldn't take the food. I wouldn't be emotionally capable of doing this unless the someone else were someone I considered despicable (and there are few persons whom I consider despicable). Ellen S. From: "George H. Smith" To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Moral Complexities: (was Emergencies) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:59:18 -0600. Ellen Stuttle wrote: "If I were the person in the shipwreck scenario, I'd think of my helping myself to food from a convenient deserted house as borrowing on the presumed benevolence of the lender and with every intention of repaying the loan. If it were a case of forcibly taking the food of some other shipwreck survivor, I wouldn't take the food. I wouldn't be emotionally capable of doing this unless the someone else were someone I considered despicable (and there are few persons whom I consider despicable)." Although Ellen presents this as her own opinion, without attributing the same view to Rand, I think the two are in basic agreement. By this I don't mean that Rand would personally refuse to take the food of another survivor by violence (I don't know if she would or not), but rather that Rand considered this to be one among several possible moral options. Although Rand apparently believed that saving yourself at he expense of someone else may be morally justified, I see no evidence that she regarded this kind of action as morally *mandatory.* I think (though I cannot prove this) that Rand, like Ellen, would base her own emergency decision on the severity of the action that would be required to save her own life. If she were shipwrecked and hungry, would she *kill* the innocent house owner in order to get to his food? I have my doubts, but neither am I certain that she would necessarily condemn someone who did, if it was either that or die from starvation. Would I steal in order to save my own life? Yes, most probably. Would I murder one innocent person to save my own life? Here I'm not absolutely certain -- it would depend on the circumstances of the scenario in question -- but probably not. Would I kill my wife or daughter in order to save my own life? Most certainly not. There are situations where we face legitimate moral options, i.e., where more than one possibility is morally permissible, and no single option is absolutely required. I think emergency cases are of this type. A lot depends on the specific details of the emergency case in question, as well as on the personal beliefs and values of the people involved. In other words, it depends on the context. As Rand wrote in "The Conflicts of Men's Interests": "The term 'interests' is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of: man's values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality." (VOS, p. 51) There is an excellent movie starring Tyrone Power, in which he must make a decision to cast some people overboard from a lifeboat, because there is no way that everyone can survive. I can't remember the title offhand -- and, no, it's not "Lifeboat," the Hitchcock film, which has a similar theme -- so maybe someone can refresh my memory. In any case, it is based on a true story, and it deals with the lifeboat case in an extremely thoughtful and interesting way. I recommend it highly. Ghs From: "William Dwyer" To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's emergency ethics Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:10:59 -0800. Ellen Stuttle wrote, "I asked you this question before about the blankets scenario. I wonder if your answer is still the same about the shipwreck scenario. To whom does the food belong which the starving person takes? To whom does the house belong which the starving person enters?" Gosh, Ellen, I don't remember my answer to the "blankets scenario". What did I say? Please tell me; I sure wouldn't want to give a different answer to the "shipwreck scenario". You know how much I value consistency, and how difficult it is to keep track of all those "scenarios". And there you go again asking me embarrassing questions, like I know the answers! Okay, okay. To whom does the food belong which the starving person takes? Hmm. Now that's a good one. Let's see...it doesn't belong to the starving person, right? -- even though he is justified in taking it. Then does it belong to the owner? Wellll.... (let's see, how can I squirm out of this? -- are you listening, Jason; I wouldn't want you to miss this one!). Ahem! I'd say...that it doesn't belong to the owner either, at least not at the time the starving person is justified in taking it. Why not? Well, you see, if the food belongs to the owner, then the starving man shouldn't take it. But it's not true that the starving man shouldn't take it. He needs it to survive. Therefore, the food does not belong to the owner. Kind of a modus tollens argument, if you know what I mean! I.e., If A, then B; not-B; Therefore, not-A. Sound good? I knew you'd like it. Then I will happily use the same argument to answer the second question. Whew! Got by that one in a pinch, didn't I?! Billy D. P.S. Now Ellen, you be a good girl and don't bother me no more with these damn fool questions, ya hear! From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Rand's emergency ethics Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:13:07 -0500 Bill says: > Sound good? I knew you'd like it. No. Sounds dumb. >Then I will happily use the same argument to answer the second question. Whew! Got by that one in a pinch, didn't I?! Billy D. The second question was whether the house belonged to the starving person who had entered it. I assume Bill does realize the extent of the possessions -- the property -- he divested from that poor hapless homeowner who happened to get in a starving man's path. >P.S. Now Ellen, you be a good girl and don't bother me no more with these damn fool questions, ya hear! No more damn fool questions if you stop writing damn fool arguments, ya hear! ES From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Whose bread is it anyway? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:17:17 -0500 I'm glad to see Bill acknowledge in so many words that the conclusions he draws from Rand's definition of rights are his own, but I must take issue with his comment that: >This whole debate over "disappearing rights" has become little more than a semantic issue.... I have argued from the beginning -- by which I mean since somewhat more than a year ago, when I first began paying attention to Bill's views on rights -- that the implications of his precise arguments are deadly. I have no doubt at all, pointed questions and remarks notwithstanding, that *Bill himself*, fully respects individual rights and would never himself take any of the actions to which his implications could lead. But others wouldn't be as scrupulous. Like George, I much respect Bill's dedication to philosophy, but what I think is that often the details of how Bill puts his arguments open the door to consequences at which he would shudder. Thus I caution him to keep in mind that philosophy indeed IS powerful, and that he'd be better off spending more time on the details of how he puts things before he fires off his typically rapid responses. He might thus spare himself and all of us months' worth of repetitive debate. Ellen S.
  12. Ellen wrote: And, since you have at least two high-risk factors, your age and hypertension, on what basis did you assess your chances of dying from Covid as "extremely low"? end quote Well, Grasshopper, since you ask. With medication my BP is low. I sleep well with a CPAP machine. I have good dreams. My brain is functioning. Until recently I walked 2 or 3 miles, three times a week, and I may begin again. The top of my right foot got sore. I don’t get sick. I haven’t had a cold in seven or eight years. I was deemed, healthy by my Doc. My meds have not changed in ten years. I think my observation about myself “being healthy and not worried too much about Covid,” may have been from when Covid was new around March 2020. That month my mother in law died when she was 92 and I didn’t think it was from old age. She had Covid symptoms but they would not test her. “She was 92,” the medics repeated several times. At the same time I felt out of sorts and I wondered if I had mild Covid but I never had myself tested. I survived, and I felt invincible even though that IS, and WAS, a hunch based on my report from the VA, though my creatinine level is off a bit. But no change in meds was advised. I may stop daily taking 2000 I.U. of vitamin D which can have an effect on it . . . maybe I will change to 3 or 4 times a week. Other factors can by Motrin or Aleve using. I stopped. And too much red meat, not enough fiber and not enough water can affect your creatinine level. Now I am vaxxed up. My Pfizer vaccination yesterday has left me with a mildly sore arm around the injection site. I plan on making minor life style changes and I will be back at the VA in six months. How are all of you doing? Peter
  13. This fake headline seems like something from the 1800’s. 58,000 Dead, and Depraved DeSantis Is Just Getting Started. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis gave us a sneak preview of how Republican leaders will challenge the Biden Administration’s proposed mandate that would require private sector employers with 100 or more employees to either vaccinate their staff or impose weekly COVID tests. The mandate would affect nearly two-thirds of the private sector workforce, and judging from the success of other recent mandates, it would be a major step towards trying to flatten the COVID-19 curve and “reopen” America by 2022.
  14. What have you done Brant, former medical professional for the United States? Well for me I am protected after getting three Covid shots, so Covid is no longer a threat to me. The people I love are vaccinated so Covid is no longer a threat to them. Now Covid exists as a threat to . . . the guys who won’t get vaccinated . . . who lack something or other . . . and I wish you well . . . I hope you don’t die. Sob. I remember when this epidemic started and I had an extremely low chance of dying from it . . . and now I have even a lesser chance of dying from it. I will take the lesser chance. As Adele sang, We could have had it all . . . . Get the vaccinations.
  15. I got my Pfizer booster shot today at the VA. They only had six shots left and were wondering if the staff should go home early. I have no sore arm or any other affects so far, this Saturday. The nice nurse who took my info wondered if I had my "card" (not a passport) and if I did she would update it. I didn't bring it. No one in public life has ever asked to see "my vax passport" and I don't think that will ever happen around here. Born in the U.S.A.