Mikee

Members
  • Content Count

    1,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mikee

  1. Jonathan,

    Coulter has more balls than most establishment Republican men.

    That's so metaphorically true, it almost could be reality.

    :smile:

    Michael

    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. This guy seems to have a good feel for Aristotle in general.

    Aristotle’s best answer for how one should live was the concept of eudaimonia. Unfortunately this word has been tough to translate to English, so there are two favored translations I’m aware of. The first is “happiness,” and the second is “human flourishing.” Most other translations I’ve seen are variations on one of these. Personally I might translate this term as “fulfillment,” although that’s not perfectly accurate either. Eudaimonia is a process of living virtuously, not a fixed state of being. It’s not really an emotion like “happiness” suggests. Aristotle came up with this answer because he found that eudaimonia was the only potential goal of life that could be considered an end in itself rather than a means to another end. I think this is the reason that happiness is perhaps the most popular translation because happiness is an end in itself, not a means to anything else.

    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. Character, then, is destiny, I believe - with one caveat ... that it accompanies action.

    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. Sorry Mike. I thought I was clear. When I clicked on Days of Rage, the site you posted, my site advisor immediately warned me it was an unsafe site and blocked the most suspicious ads and links. When I scrolled to the picture-stories at the bottom one was about beautiful breasts, one was about large but voluptuous booties, and one was about Maryland's great Olympian, and champion chug-a-lugger, Michael Phelps. When I started to read the story the word allegedly prominently appeared. It was a damn smear and a lie, like you see on the cover of the National Enquirer.

    Peter

    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. That phony site had phony advertising and stories. My site monitor warned me and blocked all the viruses abounding there, (I hope.) One lead to a story saying Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps had a transgender boy friend but when I said WTF and clicked on it, the word alleged popped up. Lying bastards. Any crap to make a buck. Phelps should sue them.

    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. A story I heard is of a young man going to a Rabbi, who at one stage asks the young man

    "What do you want to be when you're older?" He replies: "Oh, I'm entering college to study law, then I want to be a criminal lawyer, and ..." The Rabbi cuts him off: "I didn't ask what you want to DO, what do you want to BE?"

    It seems to me the 'being', among Objectivist circles doesn't always get enough play. The 'doing' seems to receive the lion's share of attention while the 'being' is left implied, overlooked. (I've the sense that simply making the implicit, (and the given, and the self-evident) explicit, is a large portion of Objectivist endeavor).

    In Rand, there are many referents to "conviction" and commitment, and where she addresses 'being' more fully is in her writing on the virtues. But what are virtues for? Indirectly (I think) they are the means of gaining and keeping all one's values. Directly, they are the basis for an individual's composite character, his greatest value.

    But the greatest part of her expounding on the criticality of "being'", character, etc., is of course implicit throughout her novels. Her protagonists are men and women who 'do' according to their character (convictions, virtues, etc.) or lack of. One couldn't imagine Roark doing what Toohey does, and the reverse. Implicitly we the readers understand that their character is the defining element of "Roark" and "Taggart" - etc. Simply, they do what they are, and they are what they do.

    Which brings it round to the under-pinning of Romanticist literature and art.

    "Man is a being of volitional consciousness".

    Once again I think this elegantly lean statement receives more attention on the "doing" aspect. That is - the individual has to perceive, focus and cogitate by choice. He can redirect his thinking, by choice. Or he can simply "switch off". Volitionally.

    But the "action" of consciousness is part of a symbiosis -- since there exists simultaneously one's "state" of consciousness.

    If you look at her statement again, you see it also and equally means that you volitionally select the content of your consciousness and give it its unique, individual identity.

    One chooses one's consciousness, by all that one does. A lot of Objectivists already know this from "man is a being of self-made soul". I knew of it, but for a long time didn't put the pieces together.

    Character, then, is destiny, I believe - with one caveat ... that it accompanies action.

    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. For those who want to see a slightly different side to Donald Trump, here is a gotcha-less interview with Hugh Hewitt:

    Trump says he will be unveiling some of his picks for key positions shortly. He also said he has been sought out by many top people in the military who want to get on board with him.

    Michael

    That was good.

  10. 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:

    eps.gif

    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.

    "

  11. Hahahahaha! So now I'm lying about being a painter? Hahaha! Damn, you're an emotional mess!

    You ask if I'm so stupid that I don't understand that you're calling me out on my "lying." The answer is that, no, I'm not so stupid, since I just addressed the issue in asking you to specifically identify the alleged lies that you believe I've told about your darling "Wolf." You didn't do so. Instead, you once again vented your little feelings.

    And what in the hell are you talking about when you say that thin-skinned whining has driven people from OL? WTF? I don't whine. Rather, I attack. I attack Objectivish-inspired falsehoods and poses. I bring facts to correct idiot zealots' wrongheaded arguments and self-contradictions. I bring potent, substantive arguments that they can't answer, and so the slink away.

    As for being interesting, my participation here generally causes more interest and readership than most other posters.

    J

    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?

  12. So, you offer no defense of my accusations that you are a self obsessed liar...

    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.

  13. 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...]

  14. Mikee,

    Do you have any substance, or just more emotings? Can you not address my criticisms of your boyfriend "Wolf's" ideas and methods?

    J

    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?

  15. My favorite thing to observe in O-land is when the wool is pulled so entirely over Rand's fans' eyes that they can't see that the new object of their affection is not only opposing Rand and her philosophy and her sense of life, but totally shitting on her. To me that was the funniest thing about the morons who went gaga over Pigero and became his followers. Morons to the core.

    J

    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...

  16. "No man should be allowed to judge his own case." -- "Wolf DeVoon"

    And yet when I've called "Wolf" "Pup," or "Pup BaBoon," he has threatened that, if I ever call him such names in person, he will settle it right then and there by taking matters into his own hands and making me deeply regret it. Badass street fighter and judge-in-his-own-case "Wolf" is going to open up such an enormous can of whoopass that the beating I receive will alter my outlook on life.

    "Wolf," do you ever think anything through? I mean, for a legal scholar/philosopher wannabe, why doesn't it ever occur to you to consider critically examining any of your ideas or behavior?

    J

    P.S. 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.

    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:internet-tough-guys-skinny-boy-pic.jpg

    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.

  17. My favorite thing to observe in O-land is when the wool is pulled so entirely over Rand's fans' eyes that they can't see that the new object of their affection is not only opposing Rand and her philosophy and her sense of life, but totally shitting on her. To me that was the funniest thing about the morons who went gaga over Pigero and became his followers. Morons to the core.

    J

    So you're mission is to protect everyone and set them right. The world according to Jonathan... Sorry, don't need you, go away.

  18. Jonathan,

    I seem to remember you saying you were backing off. What accounts for your present assholery?

    Whatever you're doing there's a cat somewhere that can do better:tumblr_mdk1xcrpZJ1r88u00o1_500.jpg

    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.