John Dailey

Members
  • Posts

    1,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Dailey

  1. ~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery, other than what survivors of us will have to put up with if we lose as a result of Marquis de Queensbury rules about 'innocent' foreigners who've seen no worth in acquiring official protection from the U.S. (via dual-'citizenry'); indeed, their priorities show an opposite evaluation of everything 'U.S.' ~ Finally, LP's appearance has been discussed; his conclusion has been discussed; have his r-e-a-s-o-n-s been discussed? ~ BTW, this whole argument is moot,, since no forseeable US President will attack Iran. They won't have to: --> Israel will initiate it when Iran gets threatening enough to them. You can bet that all candidates, as well as Bush, are aware of this. LLAP J:D
  2. ~ Having a need to kill 'innocents' (defined here, in this context, as non-combatants who are living under the power of the Enemy) is to be revulsed...just as having a need to saw off one's pinned arm to save one's own life; that is, IF it is a need (properly determinable ONLY by the military), and not just an alternative quick fix. ~ To be sure, that we have a Civilian (1st 'Citizen', need I add?) in charge of the military is not only nice, it's a purposely built-in part of our checks-balances system: no military 7 DAYS IN MAY military coups to worry about, plus, the constant reminder that the military is accountable to the citizens it's (ostensibly) there to protect...from foreigner attacks. ~ An innocent non-combatant non-citizen foreigner is not to be compared in worth in lethal situations to a citizen...or combatant...of 'our' side. To do so is to prepare for seppuku. LLAP J:D
  3. ~ This thread is one hell of an example of over(mis?)-analyzing molehills into mountains and seeing what one's filtered oneself to only see. A child-raiser of a Down Syndrome child, and, who also has hazel eyes and a beard. LLAP J:D
  4. ~ What's politic(ian)s got to do with it? THE MOTIVE for going in and taking over is what. (Interesting that no one's asked "Why would they do this on the basis of an anonymous [sorry William: a 'self-identifed' caller is an anonymous one in my book until identifed by the callee] call?" ~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history. LLAP J:D
  5. ~ What is really needed is an overhaul of the laws re 'protecting "children" (Ahem!)', and not only in Texas. --- CPS/DCYS/etc need to have legal reins put on them re any decision that they be called in to care for and even to 'monitor' (hence file reports of continued necessity for their activities). But then, I innuended that in my post #191. ~ However, only the legislators can overhaul laws, and, as we all know, all legislators are politicians 1st and foremost following their constituents' wishes; ergo, no changes will be forthcoming. LLAP J:D
  6. ~ Haven't caught the movie, even yet, in spite of all the generally glowing praise (even from pro 'critics') about it. Ntl, attempting to segue this thread back to the movie (no small feat at this point)... ...I was a fan of the character in the comics, back when, but there's something I can't remember: Did Tony Stark ever smoke in the comics (pre-'tobacco is evil' days)? LLAP J:D
  7. Addendum: ~ One can say that the choice/decision to do nothing is itself a fact of course, but, on its own, it's a 'man-made' fact, as the choice/decision to do something (irrigate, whatever) would be; the latter's consequence would be an additional 'man-made' one. LLAP J:D
  8. Chaim: ~ Sounds like you're thinking of the Necessary-Contingent analysis of 'facts.' Once LP said "must", well, that's the 'Necessary' side, right? ~ Re your scenario, one 'given' is: the desert's there; ergo we have the 'metaphysically given.' The other is: the lack of men choosing to do something with it which they otherwise 'could' (ergo, 'Contingent'?) do. It's a fact that they chose NOT to do something there, but, there is no 'man-made' consequence. ~ The lack of any 'choice' being applied results in no NEW 'fact' (man-made or whatever) being created (and distinguishable) in anything anymore than, say, a desert that no one discovered yet, though they 'could' have earlier had they chosen to explore the area back when. ~ How's that sound? LLAP J:D
  9. ~ If I may belatedly add to the prospective titles of that book whose lectures I listened to a long time ago in a life far, far away... THINKING: Why Bother? --Merely Feeling You're Right Makes You Usually Wrong!-- HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS RATHER THAN COMPOUND THEM. TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO...Causes Ulcers for Life. LLAP J:D PS: Congrats RB; I'm hamburgered out anyways.
  10. ~ For those familiar with my past posts on all this, obviously I'm with Phil and Laure on this whole thing. It's all interesting 'reading' for us National Enquirer readers but, the content's as substantial as emptying out ash trays with 1 butt in them. --- In short, at this point, most criticizers (most especially those who criticize our criticism of them) are wasting their time, and especially intellectual energies and foci, anal-yzing every little comment by disagreers, just because they posted a disagreement. ~ There are more worthwhile things to learn from others about on O'ism...besides trying to out-Randroid Randroids. LLAP J:D
  11. ~ After reading these 11 pages of a single thread covering the same 'personality' (Rand, Branden, Perigno, Peikoff, and any and all 'supporters' of whichever) issues (called 'garbage-detail'...here) which have been gossiply over-covered in this forum's other threads (as well as within SOLO-P) and other fora, I think there should be a sequel thread called: "REPLYING TO WHY NO ONE TAKES 'OBJECTIVISM' SERIOUSLY...AT ALL." --- and link back to this thread's beginning. ~ Anyone who's read AS or FH and pops into these threads will see the predominantly discussed subjects being a chronic E!-oriented personality dissecting, pro-and-con, (starting with, though clearly not limited to, Rand) and find relatively quite less re her philosophy's 'gaps', nothing about 'where to go from here', and depending on the fora, lots about where her philosophy's lacking (with no pointing to how to 'improve' it.) LLAP J:D
  12. Bob Mac: ~ I never implied that 'alien seeding' was incompatible with 'evolution.' --- I was implying that if 'Creationism' is to be considered by proponents as an alternative hypothesis, then, thereby, so should also 'alien seeding', but, you won't hear/see them bring that up. Indeed, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke did a movie on their own version of this idea re 'mental' (not even physical) seeding. ~ Interesting that Reese subtley boils all of anti-evolutionists probs down to the very single node and point of where/when/how 'life' starts (physically, however, if at all, 'defined'), and really seems to have no prob with the ideas about any later development/changes/stages. Most evolutionists (except reductionists) are more concerned with the latter, while their opponents seem more concerned with the former. --- Makes me wonder, if scientists ever create 'life' in the lab, how anti-evolutionists would regard this; religionists would consider it 'soul-less;' but, agnostics like Reese? Hmmm... LLAP J:D
  13. ~ "Smash 'em"? (Sounds like: "Wipe them out; wipe them A-L-L out!") ~ Who needs 'authorities' when we have a lynch-mob operating on rumor/gossip ('democracy-in-action'!) in this thread already? ~ Akin to the gay-pedophilia association so fervently argued against a decade or so ago, here we have a 'polygamist-pedophilia' association being cemented into our consciousness thanks to MSM and...many here; nowadays, say 'polygamist' (or at least, polyamorist), and one now thinks 'pedophilia.' ~ Too many are falling for MSM 'propaganda' and failing to separate wheat from chaff (not to mention failing to: Think Twice). A. Donovan: I hope others have read your list of questions...before they continue to knee-jerkedly respond further. LLAP J:D
  14. ~ WSS asks: "For those OL members who utterly reject the actions of the state at YFZ, what should have happened upon the original complaint?" ~ *I* ask: ------ 'complaint'? A "J'Accuse"?...from precisely, and specifically WHOM? Who can the accused confront...besides 'The State' which operated on an 'anonymous report' (with the anonymous one still not 'officially' identified)? -- In this Texas situation, the (very many) accused clearly have no Legal 'right' to confront their original accusers. This is 'Justice'? ~ An 'anonymous' complaint to a legal enforcer-of-laws SHOULD be 'checked out' by the enforcers; not acted upon as if the 'report/complaint' was done by a legal official. --- Checked-Out; not Time-To-Invade-And-Take-Over. LLAP J:D
  15. ~ However, Reese seems to be doing what so many 'religionists' do: argue that 'science' and 'religious teachings (aka Reason and Faith) are on the same rational-debate par for discussion. Would that religious teachers of religion 'X' were so ready to argue with their ilk in religion 'Y.' But, you'll rarely see that. ~ 'Science', whether about Evolution or Nuclear Physics, Plate Tectonics or Cosmology, studies NATURE IN-ITS-OWN-TERMS. Some 'bottom line' is accepted (such as, nowadays so far, whereever there's matter, there's gravity) as a 'fundamental' and used to thereby 'explain' other phenomena. ~ To speak about Creationism is to speak about the 'outside' hypotheticalness of NATURE, whether supernatural 'hypothesis' (or should we say hypotheses?)...or merely alien (as in 'alien Universes'!) ~ This is not 'science', ergo, Creationism should be taught (as alien-seeding)...but...not in a so-called 'science' class. ~ Von Daniken, anyone? LLAP J:D
  16. ~ I agree with MSK's view that the article (especially as an 'op-ed') was worth reading; in its own way it was 'thought-provoking' in many ways. Prob is: it provoked me thinking down lines not yet brought up in this thread. ~ Reese starts off talking about 'science' and 'religion' (which conflict in more territories than mere Creationism & Evolution do), then focuses in on C&E only, as being representative of the general conflict, hinting an argument that the opposing ideas are rationally eqivalent (ergo, he has an 'open' mind [ahem!] and he's therefore an agnostic on the questions.) I find his argument(s), hinted and stated, as a bit disingenuous. ~ I agree with MSK re evolution: I tentatively accept it as 'explanatory' (whatever its internal details-debates.) --- Interesting that no one's argued alien-seeding as an 'alternative' theory for *our* beginnings, (though such does push the basic question of life-origins back.) 2Bcont LLAP J:D
  17. MSK: ~ You keep talking about how those in the 'group' CAN'T do this or that; they 'CAN.' No leader in these types of groups actually forcibly prevent any member from doing whatever (in America, anyway, so far). They intimidate them into NOT doing what is 'forbidden' (akin to the Cat'lic Popo re excommunication.) That's the members' prob to deal with, if you wish, however indoctrinatedly/brain-washedly/rejection-fearably so choose; not us 'outsiders.' ~ You haven't mentioned how the 'outside' community (or, The State) should insure those inside have 'access' to outside info. Yes, the inside leaders 'should' allow such; the prob is: while some clearly don't, who of 'us' outside have the right to FORCE accessibility by them? ~ My answer is: those of us 'private' citizens so concerned, do it on one's own. However, the 'State' (especially DCYS's ilk) should stay out of it. ~ HOW would *you* suggest such info access be...insured? LLAP J:D
  18. ~ Most of us were 'brainwashed', and once we dared venture beyond our safe home/community, most of us learned; some don't wish to. Let 'em alone, I say...until a FACTUAL occurrence shows re making children mental COMPRACHICOS, or a physical need of theirs is withheld. END LLAP J:D
  19. ~ 6)-- Finally, there's the perceived pedophilia some dance around, yet what this ostensibly is all about. Who, with whom, when? If no relevent answer, spare me statistical probability arguing. How many legal 'minors' (re the State-of-Texas) have been specifically established as sexually abused? Out of how many children separated from their families? Keep in mind, we're talking 'abuse' and 'minor' by Texas' LEGAL defs, and not our consensus (Ha!) of MORAL ones. ~ 7)-- As far as Stepford Wives/Robotic/'brainwashed' members (male AND female) go, MSK's explanation of the TV interviews is right on; the Amish would look similar, were there anything they got dragged into the news about. Technically though, yes, 'brainwashed' they all are by the intimidating patriarchy...which they've accepted. Same goes for the Muslim Fundy Terrorists, and pretty well all who accept some 'morality' leader complaining about what's wrong with the 'outside' world. So? 2Bcont LLAP J:D
  20. ~ 5)-- At first I was tempted to accept MSK's proposal about the State requiring (you did mean that, right MSK?) open 'education' access by such groups, rather than their usual in-house required seclusion from 'outsiders.' But then, I ask myself: Is DCYS, or its ilk, supposed to be part of this monitoring necessary to ensure it's accessed? Hmmm... ~ Further on this: anyone remember Nazi Germany's Youth education? Very anti-home-schooling, no? I understand this Nazi vestige law is still on the books in Germany, resulting in big-time harrassing of home schoolers there; then, there are the home-schoolers in Ca getting some probs as of late. --- Besides, clearly The State is not above propagandizing its own brands of falsities (who would argue that?), and, in a more subtle, while very broad-based way...especially with MSM colluding therein. 2Bcont LLAP J:D
  21. ~ 4)-- As far as I'm concerned, the RUMOR/GOSSIP (hasn't that subject been covered elsewhere?) about 'underaged' (whatever that means; guess it depends on the state...and religion discussed) sex (er, "spiritual marriages") relations probably has some seed of truth re that community; however, such a rumor is reason for the State to tear asunder ALL those families? Without ANY FACTUAL corroboration? Not in my book. ~ A side point: let's not get bogged down in a State's laws being broken (hence its sovereign right to interfere in 'X') with our view of the morality of the situation (actually, situations here; so many overlap.) We're not that far from the old Jim Crow laws you know. Breaking a law, per se, is not immoral...it's just usually not smart. 2Bcont LLAP J:D
  22. ~ The import of these two issues alone separate...in this thread...the obvious parents from the non-parents. Anyone who is raising kids now know that they better stay on the safe side with all neighbors, school-teachers, extra-curricular event associates, etc...else the police might get an 'anonymous' report...by a stolen cell phone, maybe! And once that happens, there goes the whole family, especially home-schoolers. ~ 3)-- I'm surprised the word 'marriage' is bandied about so much when clearly there was no state-recognized one that occurred (especially in a 'religion' not recognized as such by the state). What the hell is meant by 'marriage' by all these users (apart from the sect-members) of the term? Clearly not the same thing as any other user, ergo the term is meaningless since it's undefined in this whole discussion; spare me the refs to "spiritual marriages" which are always in quotes anyway. 2Bcont LLAP J:D
  23. ~ 1)-- I'm surprised that at this point no one as yet has brought up the paraphrased question: "Who will protect us from our 'protectors' "(or, in this case, our children s 'protectors'...which excludes us parents/guardians)?" ~ 2)-- I'm surprised that at this point no one has, as yet, pointed out that the State of Texas operated on an anonymous 'report' which self-identified itself as a female, age 16, etc. (which the MSM ran a marathon with) thereby making the official accuser the State itself. That some female is suspected of lying in a hoax call is irrelevent to all the State has done so far. This is a large fishing expedition (and, it might, I stress m-i-g-h-t, catch a couple...besides the big one so far, Jeffs), and no more, on the basis of a polygamous life-style (even if patriarchicly heavy-handed), using arbitrary accusations of pedophilia as a scapegoating tool. 2Bcont LLAP J:D
  24. ~ It's really not a question as to whether animals HAVE 'rights' in the O'ist framework-of-thinking, if you re-check the def in Galt's speech. ~ The question is whether or not such should be recognized/respected...by us humans. ~ We humans have no prob NOT respecting the 'rights' of those humans who invade our homes and lives (check the local news...anywhere...anytime); that's what prisons, and executions are for. These humanoids show no 'respect' for our rights, ergo, they deserve no 'respect' for theirs, though they do have them! ~ I 'respect' the rights of all animals (or species) who respect my rights; I've found none so far. Those around me exist by my PRIVILEGE of allowing them to continue; however, thereby, any-and-all non-'rights-recognizing' groups (Nazis, wolf-pack, ant-horde) is PREY, to me, should I so choose. LLAP J:D
  25. ~ I am a former Cat'lic. Did the whole alter-boy thing. Lottsa good priests and nuns in my past, no argument. ~ But the more I've learned about what 'Officialdom' does/decides, how they've handled things once they came to 'behind-the-thrones' power in the Early-Middle (thence 'Dark') Ages, I have nothing but contempt for such ostensibly 'benevolent' freedom-hating Mel-Gibsonishly-'Traditional' hypocrites who confess nothing other than that they wish to be confessed-to by as many of Barnum's clientele as possible. ~ Clearly, this subject puts me in a B-A-D mood.---Almost as much as our next election: all candidates are CIC-losers. LLAP J:D