Peter

Members
  • Content Count

    6,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Peter

  1. There won't be enough francs or pounds to buy snails. Oh, Yeah. Did anybody notice I got rid of that darn cat? Though she lost an ear she is still thriving. White cat. Cancer. Real white cat? Cancer. Who knew? Sparks's other ear is mottled but not cancerous.
  2. I was thinking the same thing. I bet the left will start checking Ben's staff to see if a fair amount of white folks are in it.
  3. And Marco. I thought he wanted to be Pence's Vice President. Obviously, a viscious rumor or is it spelled viscous? Okay. Who else we got who is Hispanic. That bearded senate dude from Texas? Yeah. Tom Cruise.
  4. I’m not trying to mess with you . . . but I looked again for FTNI and could not find it. More from the cookie jar. Hey I still have two more days of rent paid on my condo, and an old letter from BB is cool. Look how she signs it. Peter From: "William Dwyer" To: <Atlantis Subject: ATL: Rand's Definition of Reason (Was "Re: Bissell") Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:54:12 -0700. Ellen Moore wrote, "There is no evidence in Bissell's list of "possible(s)" that proves Branden changed Rand's definition. It is more likely that Rand taught Branden the fallacy because she changed her definition, and then he discussed it in the early 60's." The evidence is contained in Nathaniel's lecture, "Objectivism: Past & Future", in which he mentions the change in Rand's definition of reason that occurred in 1961, four years after the publication of _Atlas Shrugged_. He says that, during a question and answer period, a young man asked why Ayn Rand defined reason as the "faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses". The questioner said that he didn't understand what the word "perceives" was doing in her definition, and that he thought reason should be defined simply as the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. According to Branden, Rand responded that "perceives" is an important part of the definition, because all knowledge is grounded in the evidence of the senses and because you cannot have knowledge without a sensory base. Branden said that the man's question prompted him to reexamine Rand's definition. So a month or two later, he approached her, and said: "Ayn, I was thinking about the way we define reason, and, you know, we don't perceive the evidence of our senses; we perceive reality by means of the evidence of our senses." He reported that there was a long pause, after which she said, "That's true". Branden then said to her, "Think about it, Ayn. Taken literally, what does it mean to say you perceive the evidence of your senses? No, you don't. You perceive chairs and tables and smoke and mirrors by means of the evidence of your senses." To which Rand responded, "That's right, I don't need the word 'perceives' in my definition of reason; it doesn't belong there; it should be 'identifies and integrates'." Unfortunately, Rand never publicly acknowledged the change, even though Branden asked her pointedly: "Shouldn't you have a footnote or something for your more careful readers explaining that you've changed the definition slightly from Galt's Speech and you've corrected it, because some people really read you very, very carefully and will be puzzled by this change of language." Branden said that he had the feeling, which he couldn't prove, that she didn't want to say in print that she'd made a mistake. Consequently, many students of Objectivism may be unaware that there are two different definitions of reason: the original one appearing in _Atlas Shrugged_ (1957), and the revised definition which appears in _For the New Intellectual_ (1961). Without speculating on Rand's motives, I would say that she erred in not notifying her students of the change. If the definition of reason in _Atlas Shrugged_ contains an error, then it does not serve the cause of Objectivism for Rand's students to be repeating the old definition, on the mistaken assumption that it continues to be part of her philosophy. Bill From: NRoarkofConn To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Rand's Definition of Reason (Was "Re: Bissell") Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:21:54 EDT. Ellen Moore wrote: >"There is no evidence in Bissell's list of "possible(s)" that proves Branden changed Rand's definition. It is more likely that Rand taught Branden the fallacy because she changed her definition, and then he discussed it in the early 60's." I appreciate very much Bill Dwyer's comments following: > The evidence is contained in Nathaniel's lecture, "Objectivism: Past & Future", in which he mentions the change in Rand's definition of reason that occurred in 1961, four years after the publication of “Atlas Shrugged. . . .” Bill, I will let you handle Ellen M's probably objections to this evidence that you have offered. Since it's testimony by Nathaniel whom (along with me) she brands an unreliable liar, you will have to figure out how to assure list members that it really does count as evidence. Don't be surprised if you don't see any more posts by me on this list. I don't feel like contributing to a list when I am continually branded a deceiver, a liar, and a sophist. Best regards, Roger Bissell From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: EMBS, chapter 1--the arbitrary Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 02:38:39 EDT. Roger B wrote: << . . . it is ~much more~ than barely possible that Nathaniel actually did recommend this change in Rand's definition [of reason]. Indeed, it is ~highly likely ~ that he did. The fact that we have no direct testimony beyond his own word to go on is unfortunate. >> You now have direct testimony beyond Nathaniel's own word. I was present at the discussions between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel, and I can attest to the fact that he did recommend that she change her definition of reason in precisely the way that she later changed it. Barb From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Barbara's direct testimony, and questions Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 13:01:36 -0500 Barbara, You were "present ... and can attest to the fact that he [NB] did recommend that she change her definition of reason in precisely the way that she later changed it." Wonderful! Now we know that NB discussed with Rand the suggestion made by that unknown man of the Q&A period that NB identified as the one who originally offered Rand the idea that her definition of reason should be changed to, "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." We can certainly agree that all three discussed her definition. And she changed her definition later. To whom should the credit for the Objectivist definition of reason be due, to the unknown man, Nathaniel Branden, or the philosopher, Ayn Rand? Pick your own preference(s) - one, two, or all three. Now, I hope that Barbara can answer two other questions for us. We see that in editions of VOS the copyright date by Ayn Rand given for her essay 'The Objectivist Ethics' was 1961, and 1964 is also stated. Here is the first question: As Bill Dwyer stated, the first edition hardcover of VOS published in 1964 included Rand's revised definition of reason. By what circumstance did the first edition paperbacks, published in Dec., 1964, still contain the early definition with "perceives"? It appears that both 'The Objectivist Ethics' and 'For the New Intellectual" were copyrighted in 1961, but only the FTNI first edition was published in 1961. Then in 1964, when VOS was first published with her revised definition, according to Bill, the paperback first edition, Dec., 1964, still included the early definition. In which ~paperback~ edition which publishing date, 1961 or 1964, or later, changed the definition of reason to her new revised definition? If Barbara, or anyone, can offer us testimony from the books on these events I, for one, would appreciate knowing the facts about this piece of publishing history. Ellen M. From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Barbara's direct testimony, and questions Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:48:14 -0500 Ellen Moore wrote: "It appears that both 'The Objectivist Ethics' and 'For the New Intellectual" were copyrighted in 1961, but only the FTNI first edition was published in 1961. Then in 1964, when VOS was first published with her revised definition, according to Bill, the paperback first edition, Dec., 1964, still included the early definition." Ellen is working from the assumption that the hardcover version of VOS was published *before* the paperback version, but this was not the case. The paperback was published first. In the "Objectivist Calendar" of "The Objectivist Newsletter" (Nov., 1964), we find the announcement: "In December, New American Library will publish *The Virtue of Selfishness* by Ayn Rand --- and this blurb continues, "In paperback only." This clearly indicates that the paperback version of VOS was the authentic first printing, and that the hardcover version appeared later. As to why the change (in Rand's definition of "reason") was not made until sometime after the *second* printing of the paperback version -- this is probably because NAL was anticipating brisk sales and so ran off the pages for several printings at the same time. (Publishers are typically quite free in how they use terms like "first printing," "second printing," etc.) This should clear up the major confusion about the sequence of events. Rand obviously made the change sometime *after* the paperback version was already in press, so it appeared in the later hardcover version. And this change was then incorporated into *later* printings of the paperback. Ghs
  5. Not a clue. I looked in my files. Sorry. Peter Question: Well then, Dr. Branden, how would you answer the argument of these anarchists that, since government necessarily entails a monopoly on the use of force, such a monopoly can be maintained only by force and, hence, government always involves some violation of individual rights? Branden: This, of course, is their favorite argument and their stock argument. In briefest essentials, I would answer as follows. Let's imagine, to make it very simple, that we--this group in this room tonight-- form a society and agree on the principles to be operative in the society in a political sense. We agree upon a constitution and a government is created for the purpose of carrying out the principles laid down in this constitution. Now, let us say that somebody new is born into the society or enters it from some other country, and he says: ‘Look. I wasn't consulted, I wasn't asked my opinion about this system of government. I want to set up a competing system of government. How can you justify forbidding me from doing so and threatening me with jail if I don't go along with the present political order of things?’ And my answer is the following. And remember we are talking here about a free system, about a government which is limited in its function to the protection of individual rights. Suppose that I am the spokesman for this hypothetical government. Then I would say to this person as follows: In this society, nobody is forbidding you anything so long as you do not violate the rights of anybody else in this society. That means, more specifically, if you want to form private arbitration agencies to settle disputes among people who will become your clients, you may do so. That happens even in our present society. You can form a private club or a private organization and lay down any kind of rules you want for your members. You will not be stopped until and unless you attempt to use physical force or fraud or some derivative against some fellow member of this society. That you have no right to do. If you ever attempt to use force, let us say, in retaliation against a criminal, which you may have to do if the police are not available, you will be obliged to justify later your use of force and to demonstrate that it was, in fact, necessary. If you can justify it, you're in no trouble, any more than any other citizen of a free country is in trouble. So that so long as you don't infringe somebody else's rights, you can form any kind of organization you want. You can have your own arbitration committee, you can have your own system of penalties and fines and so long as the people who go along with your organization voluntarily agree to pay them, you have no problem. Your problem begins when you attempt to use force to get your way. Therefore, in conclusion, I argue that in the system we are advocating, the individual is not having his rights violated because he is not allowed to set up a competing government. end quote
  6. What do you call yourself philosophically? A fan of Rand? An Objectivist with a capital ‘O’? An objectivist with a lower case ‘o’? A Toleration-ist? An ARI guy? An Atlas Society gal? Cultish people have been called Rand-roids and other derogatory terms. Is there a “secret home of objectivists” hidden in the landscape? Is there a Galt’s Gulch in the mountains, or on an island? Of course the co-founder of Wikipedia and a former moderator of objectivist forums, is Jimmy Wales and he is a fan of Ayn Rand. Peter Some notes from: Objectivist movement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . . . . The claims of cultism have continued in more recent years. In 2004, Thomas Szasz wrote in support of Rothbard's 1972 essay, and in 2006, Albert Ellis published an updated edition of his 1968 book that included favorable references to Walker's. Similarly, Walter Block, while expressing admiration for some of Rand's ideas and noting her strong influence on libertarianism, , described the Objectivist movement as "a tiny imploding cult.". . . . Rand stated that "I am not a cult", and said in 1961 that she did not want "blind followers." In the wake of NBI's collapse, she declared that she did not even want an organized movement. Jim Peron responded to Shermer, Rothbard and others with an argument that similarities to cults are superficial at best and charges of cultism directed at Objectivists are ad hominem attacks. Objectivism, he said, lacks layers of initiation, a hierarchy, obligation, cost or physical coercion: I cannot see how a disembodied philosophy can be a cult. I say Objectivism was disembodied because there was no Objectivist organization to join. The Nathaniel Branden Institute gave lectures, but had no membership. You could subscribe to a newsletter but you couldn't join. Objectivism was, and is, structure-less. And without a structure there cannot be cult. [...] The vast majority of self-proclaimed Objectivists are people who read Rand's works and agreed with her. Most have never attended an Objectivist meeting nor subscribed to any Objectivist newsletter. In 2001, Rand's long-time associate Mary Ann Sures remarked: Some critics have tried to turn her certainty into a desire on her part to be an authority in the bad sense, and they accuse her of being dogmatic, of demanding unquestioning agreement and blind loyalty. They have tried, but none successfully, to make her into the leader of a cult, and followers of her philosophy into cultists who accept without thinking everything she says. This is a most unjust accusation; it's really perverse. Unquestioning agreement is precisely what Ayn Rand did not want. She wanted you to think and act independently, not to accept conclusions because she said so, but because you reached them by using your mind in an independent and firsthand manner. Meanwhile, Shermer, who considers himself an admirer of Rand, has tempered his judgment. Contrasting Leonard Peikoff's "heavy-hammer approach" with the "big-tent approach" of The Atlas Society, Shermer told Ed Hudgins: "If we're close enough on the same page about many things, I think it's more useful to cut people some slack, rather than going after them on some smaller points. I don't see the advantage of saying, 'You shouldn't have liked that movie because ultimately, if you were an Objectivist, you wouldn't have.' I guess it was those sorts of judgments made by some Objectiv[ists] that I objected to." end quote
  7. Arrgh! I don't know Ellen. When you are the recipient of trash talk, foul language and nasty names, it raises the blood pressure . . . since Jon used it on me I wonder why I stick around and why I am allowed to be defamed, which is against the site policy? I don't follow William Shrek much unless he is off his blog. If Michael does have concerns about William I wonder why he allows him to hitch a ride on OL? I suppose I should ask that of Michael in private but what the heck. No need to be private here on a public site. Since I will apparently still be defamed with impunity whenever Jon wills, I will take a vacation . . . . at least from contributing in any way. I can still poke around without signing on, I guess. Peter
  8. Aaah. I'm so sorry, Uncle Albert. What's on TV tonight?
  9. Me run mouth? You run mouth. At least he only called my mouth ignorant and not my typing fingers. What a maroon, said Bugs.
  10. How dare the other Jon wear black face even if he is an angel? Jon Voight to Become Trump Presidential Appointee by Paul Bond 51 mins ago, President Donald Trump said Tuesday he'll appoint Oscar-winning actor Jon Voight to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for the remainder of a six-year-term to end in September of 2024 . . . . Holy crap. This Gunn guy should not be employable. I saw the tweets from The Daily Mail if anyone is interested. “He is a baaaad man” as Ali used to say I think the Muslim Ali would be all for cutting this guy’s head off. Grotesque. James Gunn: “My words of nearly a decade ago were, at the time, totally failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative. I have regretted them for many years since — not just because they were stupid, not at all funny, wildly insensitive, and certainly not provocative like I had hoped, but also because they don’t reflect the person I am today or have been for some time.” “Regardless of how much time has passed, I understand and accept the business decisions taken today. Even these many years later, I take full responsibility for the way I conducted myself then. All I can do now, beyond offering my sincere and heartfelt regret, is to be the best human being I can be: accepting, understanding, committed to equality, and far more thoughtful about my public statements and my obligations to our public discourse. To everyone
  11. It would be interesting to see a list of Rino's who voted to overturn Trump's emergency declaration.
  12. If Gunn has thousands of pedophile tweets or texts, and he was hired by Disney? That should cause near universal outrage. "I don't get it" said Tom Hank's character in the movie, "Big."
  13. Venom. Misdirection. Cursing. Slander. Libel. More venom. Definitely not in a "happy place."
  14. I don't even know who Gunn is, if you are referring to me. I remember a guy named Ben Gunn from "Treasure Island." I just went to Jean's name location and it didn't say much about him. What do you do? Are you all the things you accuse other's of being? Why can't you "type" without cussing? Oh. I reread Michael's post. Gunn is the head of Disney and he is a pedophile too?
  15. 16 crimes. But now he is free after not getting his bail back. "Smollet charges dropped" per Fox at 7pm. So, is he exonerated or has another crime been committed to get him off the hook?
  16. I saw pictures of Smugget with the Obama's and I think there was a picture of Smugget's relative with the Obama's.
  17. Those texts are so over the top, anyone in show biz would be insane to express them. I am no expert but when I googled Patton, up those texts popped. Bingo! But was that proof? Could a web expert or a hacker print/post something making it appear that it was you or Oswalt that said it? I bet that Ruskie Puton and has buddies could. I bet Jean Letendre could. Did Le Jon change his French first name to Jon from Jean? What if I googled that? My point is, Jussie Smullen or whatever his name is lost out at the first semi proven hint of criminal activity. But Oswalt is signing up for new gigs. It boils down to this: why would he, who works for entertainment entities that are highly susceptible to public opinion to hire him, go way out on a criminal limb and admit crimes or potential crimes? it makes no sense. What if someone is trying to destroy him, like Letendre does with William every time he calls him a pedophile?
  18. I was just thinking about that. And thanks to Michael for the benevolent post. Are there any videos of Patton Oswald or whatever his name is, saying the things in those text messages? It is possible it was not him, even though I googled him myself and found those texts. What if? What if someone is trying to destroy someone's life or get them to commit suicide, etc. What if? edit Michael was replying before I sent the above.
  19. I liked when Crocodile Dundee pulls out his knife and says, "Now that's a knife." I wrote to George H. Smith, years ago. There you go again. Anarchists find traitors to THEIR freedom among the founding fathers machinations at the creation of the Constitution. ----------------------------- And George replied: You are going off the rails again, Peter, and becoming hysterical. I never said anything about traitors. Nor does my comment have anything to do with my anarchism. I merely stated the position of many Antifederalists. Do you not count opponents of the Constitution as founding fathers? They included George Mason, author of the magnificent Virginia Bill of Rights and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who said he would rather cut off his right hand than sign the document. What about Richard Henry Lee, the Virginian who made the original resolution for American independence in the Second Continental Congress? What about Patrick Henry, who refused to serve as a delegate to the Convention because he "smelt a rat"? What about Sam Adams? What about Mercy Otis Warren, the woman who wrote a two-volume history of the Revolution and who warned that the Constitution, by failing to provide sufficient safeguards for freedom, would eventually become a virtual blank check for the expansion of federal power? What about all those Quakers and other opponents of slavery who protested that pro-slavery document? Historians estimate that over half of America's population opposed ratification of the Constitution. The political tricks and maneuvering used by Federalists to overcome this liability have been been well documented by historians. A few years ago, at an ISIL conference in Williamsburg, I gave two lectures on the topic, "Was the U.S. Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution?" My talk was very balanced, as I presented the strong and weak points of each side objectively. But whether one wishes to use the term "betrayal" or not, the fact that the Constitution departed radically from many essential principles of the Revolution is indisputable. This was a hot button topic at the time, widely discussed, and Hamilton discusses it in the Federalist Papers. He freely acknowledges the differences, but argues that the Constitution, by dramatically increasing the power of the federal government, was a change for the better. Then there is the fact that the Philadelphia Convention exceeded its legally authorized mandate, which was to correct and amend the Articles of Confederation. This is one reason why Rhode Island never even sent delegates and why Lansing and Yates, two of the three delegates from NY, left in protest not long after the Convention began. Antifederalists objected to this illegality and demanded that a new convention be held -- one that was legally authorized and was not stacked with nationalists. In the Federalist Papers, Madison pretty much concedes the illegality argument but goes on to say that the Constitution was a new revolution, in effect. As a pro-Constitution newspaper put it at the time: The War with Britain was a revolution in favor of freedom. The Philadelphia Convention is a revolution in favor of government. In my two ISIL talks (which run around 2-1/2 hours total, and which may be available from ISIL), I present a detailed list and discussion of the many ways in which the Constitution departed from the principles of radical republicanism that animated the Revolution. Revolutionary principles included short terms in office, compulsory rotation in office (i.e., term limitations), a deep suspicion of executive power, a preference for local governments over a centralized government, limits on taxing power, the insistence that all powers exercised by a government must be enumerated and expressly granted by the people, a preference for federalism over nationalism, etc., etc. In virtually every case, modern libertarians would agree with the Antifederalists, not the Federalists, on these issues. Fortunately, the nationalists did not get everything they wanted. (Hamilton, for example, wanted a president elected for life who would have to (the) power to veto all state legislation.) Hence the final document was, in Madison's words, a "bundle of compromises." It also incorporated a number of good ideas that both Federalists and Antifederalists shared. This is why I said the Antifederalists were largely correct. Virtually every one of their predictions about the growth of governmental power that would occur under the Constitution has come to pass, and they correctly identified the reasons for this, such as the "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause. The Antifederalists were amenable to changes in the Articles, but they wanted to close the loopholes that the Constitution left for the expansion of power. The dire warnings of the Antifederalists were widely dismissed as anti-government hysteria, but it was not long before Hamilton, in his defense of federal subsidies for private businesses, presented his detailed defense of the Implied Powers Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Constitution implicitly vests Congress with powers that far exceed the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. This broad interpretation of the general welfare clause, which effectively renders the enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec. 😎 null and void by vesting Congress with indefinite and undefined powers, was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1936. The majority decision declared: Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the general welfare. Many Antifederalists, such as Mercy Warren, saw this coming and insisted that the Constitution should be rewritten so as to leave no doubt that Congress had only those powers that were expressly delegated to it. I discussed these issues in some detail in the four Knowledge Products tapes that I wrote on the Constitution -- two on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and two on the text of the Constitution itself. My four tapes (around 200 manuscript pages) were part of an eight tape set, and in 1988 this set, after receiving the approval of a committee of leading historians, became the official Bicentennial tapes on the U.S. Constitution. I mention this in case you think that an anarchist is incapable of writing good history . . . .
  20. I remember getting in flame or turf wars with George Hamilton Smith back on the old Atlantis and OWL. Damn. He was brilliant. I can't say the same for Letendre. He seems to be a junk yard dog.
  21. I will never be judgmental about your posts if you no longer post. Boo! Go away. I will not ignore your "crimes against humanity' you piece of excrement.
  22. You should be banned for life from OL or at least put on probation but I will allow Michael to judge.
  23. Port-a-pottie mouth Jon wrote, "Billy, is this you???" No. It was a ghost, Pepe Letendre, and you are a skunk. You have the soul of everything you have accused others of being. At the least you are psychologizing others and deliberately trying to initiative violence or coercion against others here on OL.