Mikee

Members
  • Posts

    1,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mikee

  1. Michael, "More balls" simply means reckless. I know "no risk, no reward"...but reckless is not necessarily a compliment. It could mean action without thought. [guilty]
  2. http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/06/the-meaning-of-life-how-shall-we-live/ I am verging on certain that this is what we mean, and Jefferson meant, by the "pursuit of happiness." A... Excellent, excellent. Thriving is the term that applies to both eudaimonia and happiness, which Ayn Rand's definition of true nature of Man, Traders!!!, allows to happen. Win, win, love your fellows who's individual nature's allow them to be experts in the making of the things and understanding of things that you cannot grasp but are necessary for your thriving! And vice versa!
  3. Many good points. I have to come back to this. My sense of people is their character is immutable. The question is nature? or nurture? Part of it the culture we absorb in our pre-rational state, part DNA. One thing that makes me optimistic, there is such a thing as an intelligent sociopath. They never break the law though they really don't give a shit about other people. They don't break the law for the same reason large predators don't prey on humans as a general rule. Because they've been taught by evolution that other humans will gang together and hunt them down and kill them. Improve the law and general intelligence and then we've got something. Mike, There must be a large number of people around, like a few I know, nominated "of great character"-- and who unassumingly put their virtue down to outside factors. Like you, they probably took little credit for forming it. But the practice of personal virtues was there and they achieved them unaided, regardless of nature, without knowing any fancy ;) philosophy. (I don't dismiss nurture/culture, but ultimately the effort is and has to be, self-motivated). If I'd put it in terms of the O'ist virtues (the basic virtue of Rationality, with the sub-virtues of Integrity, Honesty, Independence, Justice) "character", which I view as a composite and the resultant value of the constant practice of these virtues, would be familiar to you. (You know the one about the law, from Aristotle? "This I've learned from philosophy, that I do without being told what other people do from fear of the Law"). Yes! I'm exceedingly tired tonight and I've had a glass of wine so I won't do a good job with this reply but I don't want another day to pass without giving it a try. Those people of whom you speak, they are the ones I'm thinking of, those whose true inner nature speaks the loudest. They are sensitive to the cultural habits taught in childhood which contradict the part of our inner nature that made us into the strong, enduring, cooperative and rational intelligent species that allow us the possibility to survive and thrive. They are the ones who discard the broken parts, that fix the broken memes before they ultimately destroy us. The true philosophers that don't sit in their ivory towers writing tomes that nobody reads but are the leaders in their groups and persuade others to find a better way, small step by small step. I did not remember the Aristotle quote, but the people I'm thinking of hear their true inner nature, that which evolved necessarily in the exceedingly difficult times of the far distant and lost past that is the reason we still exist. The ability to communicate and cooperate with our fellows, to understand and love our fellow man, to gain more from our interactions and trading with others that allow us to thrive, that makes the future truly unlimited. They respect and follow their inner spirit, what they've learned from the philosophical dreaming, more than any law imposed from without by a culture with unnamed sources and unexplained reasons except conformity.
  4. Okay. Strange. That's the zerohedge website, I go there all the time and have never had a problem. I don't see any weird ads. You must have been redirected. Do you already have a virus?
  5. What are you talking about Peter? Did you post something on the wrong thread again? It's hard to keep up with your haphazard thoughtless mistakes...
  6. Many good points. I have to come back to this. My sense of people is their character is immutable. The question is nature? or nurture? Part of it the culture we absorb in our pre-rational state, part DNA. One thing that makes me optimistic, there is such a thing as an intelligent sociopath. They never break the law though they really don't give a shit about other people. They don't break the law for the same reason large predators don't prey on humans as a general rule. Because they've been taught by evolution that other humans will gang together and hunt them down and kill them. Improve the law and general intelligence and then we've got something.
  7. Greg, 1. You're wrong for not recognizing individual difference. 2. You're wrong for not tolerating individual difference. 3. You're wrong for not accepting individual difference. 4. You're wrong for not celebrating individual difference. An individualist might trace the evolution of their individualism as shown above. You seem to be at step 1. I think if you could get past step 1 you would quickly be at step 3. The important thing about people and their lifestyles and inclinations is: 1. They don't try to kill you. 2. They don't try to take your stuff.
  8. http://www.nysun.com/editorials/trumps-moral-obligation/89289/ "The clerk is arguing right now in federal court that requiring her to issue such licenses under her own name is a religious test that would prevent Apostolic Christians such as herself from ever serving as clerks at Rowan County. She might be right, she might be wrong. But the Left wants that claim dismissed out of hand, without even a full due process in court, and the judge seems to be of a similar mind. Wouldn’t it be nice were at least one candidate to signal that he or she grasps the meaning of this clause to which all officers of America are morally obligated?" I have begun to see that this issue is not a clearly defined as I thought. The Constitution states there cannot be a religious test to hold an office in the government. Kim Davis is claiming forcing her to perform actions contrary to her religious belief is a religious test the Constitution has forbidden. I think she's wrong, no one, office holder or not, has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to violate another persons lawfully given right to equal treatment. But she deserves her day in court. Perhaps that is the only way the Constitutional and moral principles involved can be clearly stated and understood. I would think that the glaringly obvious corollary to forbidding a religious test for office holders would be the office holders are forbidden to apply their personal religious tests to the performance of that office and to the individuals of the public they serve.
  9. Tracinski: Did the Real Republican Nominee Just Stand Up?
  10. John Batchelor: Fiorina Rising?
  11. It's always good to be prepared. If not for today, then tomorrow. “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” ― Benjamin Franklin
  12. Why Carly should scare democrats "The GOP might just nominate a passionate, articulate pro-life woman as its standard-bearer in 2016. If that happens, Democrats can say goodbye to their beloved “war on women” rhetoric."
  13. Investment dictionary EPS: " DEFINITION of 'Earnings Per Share - EPS' The portion of a company's profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock. Earnings per share serves as an indicator of a company's profitability. Calculated as: When calculating, it is more accurate to use a weighted average number of shares outstanding over the reporting term, because the number of shares outstanding can change over time. However, data sources sometimes simplify the calculation by using the number of shares outstanding at the end of the period. "
  14. Hilarious! How did I miss this one?
  15. You evade again. I specifically said I wasn't talking about your remarks about Wolf. You are a bore, a habitual liar, and a nasty little man. Why don't you take a poll and count your fans?
  16. In order to offer a defense against being arbitrarily accused of being a "liar," I'd need to hear specific examples that you had on mind in which you believed I was lying. Do you have any, or was "liar" just the first word that popped into your emotion-driven mind when you decide to throw your tantrum about my criticism of "Wolf's" very anti-Objectivist notions of justice? Please cite examples of my alleged lies. That is, if you can control your emotions long enough to do so. J You are such a shameless, practiced liar I begin to wonder if anything about you is real. Are you really a painter? Is that how it works, follow one lie after another, tirelessly, until the beginning is lost and fades from memory? Nothing I said was about your bullshit "substantive criticisms" of Wolf. It was about your post saying you were going to get off Wolf's case...and then you didn't, you go on and on and on and on. And I said, Wolf called you out when he was angry, then dropped it, I fully recognized that Wolf started the whole thing, he said something similar to me once. So what. And Wolf and I are not friends, I criticised his work and in general he has no use for me. Are you so stupid you don't understand that I was calling you on your lying and lame attempts at driving someone off OL? Wolf is at least interesting, I do not care if I agree with everything he says, he makes interesting arguments and has a unique perspective. I have spoken up before about thin skinned whineing driving interesting people away. You are the worst. Like a god damned yapping toy poodle.
  17. That's it? Rand is rolling over in her grave with your "defense". Rand would prefer people stood on their own feet with a working brain rather than rote regurgitation of her works. Rand was an individualist, she could have had real discussions with Wolf, she would cut you off at the second sentence out of your mouth. So, you offer no defense of my accusations that you are a self obsessed liar but try to change the subject by an appeal to Rand and your superior 'rationality'. I'm supposed to carefully consider your ramblings when they are interspersed with insults and end with this: "Can we arrange to meet briefly, alone in a dark alley or somewhere similar? After having learned so much more about you now, I'm eager to have that face-to-face encounter in which you imagine that you're going to set me straight and change my world. Please, let's set up a time and place that's convenient for you." You can't have it both ways, Objectivist scholar and vengeful self obsessed bully. What is your personal philosophy 'standing on one foot'? How does it fit with wanting to be someone's personal demon from hell? [Think of it as an intervention. Gratis. But Sunday is clean up day around my house...]
  18. http://whois.domaintools.com/rebirthofreason.com Doesn't appear to be for sale. Can't find anything about why it's down.
  19. It's not about Wolf, it's about Jonathan, you, you, you. And whether or not you are an obsessed madman and a liar. I have my own tentative conclusions about Wolf, I have his book. My issue with you is you have no perceivable purpose but to insult and denigrate someone. You make the same point a million times, plus all the baiting. You do exactly what you accuse someone else of doing. You make physical threats, calling someone out to meet in person for a physical confrontation. You project a tough guy image. You know it's not going to happen, there goes the image, now you look really, really small. So, puff yourself back up with some real verifiable data about yourself. Paint a picture of yourself. Get out of the house much? Hey, I know you want to talk about yourself. Genius IQ? Other people's opinions don't matter? You figured out everything there is to know when you were eight? Did you ever harm small animals when you were young? Was that not enough?
  20. So you're mission is to protect everyone and set them right. The world according to Jonathan... Sorry, don't need you, go away.No. You're still being highly irrational and making nonsense inferences. Get a grip. Go soak your head, and try to get control of your emotions. Focus on trying to think rationally again. J Hey! Slow down. Remember, more meds...
  21. Wolf said something in a heated moment and backed off. Are you in heat all the time? You know this encounter is never going to take place. What are your particulars that make you so brave? Details: military experience, fighting background, years spent as a bouncer in a biker bar, martial arts degrees, height, weight, age, body composition, strength benchmarks, impress me with your physical prowess. Upgrade this picture:Are you "Wolf's" girlfriend? You're sure acting like it. J Just as I thought. Maybe one of your many, many, female admirers who send you personal messages on OL can chime in your defense. Or do you have an overactive imagination? Or are you just habitually dishonest?I never said anything about having female admirers, idiot. I merely said that women had contacted me and agreed wholeheartedly with my takedowns of loudmouthed men. You should take some time to calm your emotions. You're way too worked up to think straight. Try to practice Objectivism, and behave rationally. well, that is, if you still value Objectivism and if your crush on "Wolf" hasn't made you abandon it. J Bullshit. You still haven't muscled up that image any...got nothing? Wish one of your girls would chime in in your defense... You're quite boring actually.
  22. So you're mission is to protect everyone and set them right. The world according to Jonathan... Sorry, don't need you, go away.
  23. Sorry if I was misunderstood, but I didn't mean to suggest that I'd be backing off in regard to all of "Wolf's" shenanigans, but only in regard to his pathetic self-aggrandizement of his filmmaking talents. My pity involved my seeing what his career has produced and comparing it to his pissing on much, much better filmmakers. Normally I'd want to have a good laugh at such delusional hubris, but in this case it really is just too pathetic to enjoy any humor in it. Anyway, do you have a crush on "Wolf" or something? Has he conned you into thinking that he's the brilliant philosopher of law that he poses as being? I think that you're illustrating why charlatans target Objectivish-types. You're so easily manipulated. Someone comes along and claims to be Rand-influenced, and you go fucking gaga over them, despite their being quite anti-Objectivish in their ideas and behavior. Wake up, dupe! J I may disagree with Wolf on the details but we are passionate about the same things, liberty, justice, individualism. Wolf is interesting, you are not.Wow, the love bug has bitten you hard! Heh. Did you not read and comprehend "Wolf's" most recent posts, you fool? Hahahaha! J You're losing it Jonathan. Better up your meds.