KacyRay

Members
  • Content Count

    493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About KacyRay

  • Rank
    $$$$
  • Birthday 06/21/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Norfolk, VA
  • Interests
    Chess, Music, Polemics, Philosophy, Psychology, Sports, Literature

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Kacy Ray
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Rush
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

2,740 profile views
  1. I blocked him from commenting on my own personal venues. I don't pretend to have censored him from anywhere other than my own cyber-realms. Yes, he was being disrespectful and deliberately trolling. But I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here and now. What you perceive as me being manipulated is actually a good faith demonstration on my part that I am not interested in grudges. So long as dialogue remains respectful and honest, I will dialogue with anyone so long as the conversation is one worth having. You know, this "you're being manipulated" line is yet another vague and unfalsifiable charge, and I'm baffled that you are persisting with it. You could make that charge against anything I say, couldn't you? I could just as easily say it about every word you write and there's not a thing you could do to falsify the accusation. In fact anyone could say it about anything anyone else says. I've had off-line conversations with RB many times. Up until now, they were contentious and not related to anything being discussed in the common areas. That's why you never heard about them,. But the off-line conversations I'm having now *do* relate. And the reason I know what he wrote that didn't get through moderation is because he sent them my way. I didn't realize that sending someone a copy of something you wrote that didn't get through moderation in order to continue discussing it was a manipulation tactic. And here it looked to me like... conversation! You know you're being condescending. You know that your "you're so easily manipulated! How cute!" line is condescending and unmerited. And for the record... this conversation isn't about RB. It's about you and me, and the fact that decorating your condescension with emoticons doesn't disguise what you're doing. I was having a fine conversation about anti-fragility, and I would have liked it if RB would have been able to continue contributing to it. I don't know what kind of PM's you're getting or who they're coming from, but I am pretty confident that my words, and the motives for speaking them, are mine alone. I'd appreciate it if you would grant me the benefit of the doubt on that.
  2. RB did not ask me to say anything, relay any messages, or speak in any way on his behalf at any point. But hey... don't be afraid to play out a narrative in your mind!
  3. I wasn't suggesting you were dropping hints with the title. I was putting that completely on the guy who titled the video. Morgan said "Makes me sick". That's disgust, which is quite different from "angry after losing debate". Disgust is an appropriate reaction in many cases. It's off topic, I know... I was just pointing out how common that polemic tactic is - the assigning of emotions to others.
  4. RB is clarifying to me (since his comments aren't getting through moderation) that anti-fragile is being misunderstood. That's partially my fault for conflating it with durability. Durability is an imperviousness to damage. Anti-fragility is actually a state in which a normally damaging situation (action/statement/blunder) actually actually makes the anti-fragile being stronger. In other words, a durable person would be unaffected by a bullet. An anti-fragile person would absorb the bullet and be made stronger by it. That was clear in the OP - I just didn't catch it. He also made some comments regarding my assessment of Palin that I hope make it through moderation.
  5. I like that title "Piers Morgan gets angry after losing gun control debate" As you pointed out, people aren't interested in reality. They have to play out the narrative in their mind. There it is again, the tendency among people to engage in polemic demagoguery. It's such an adolescent polemic tactic, and I see it so often.
  6. Kacy, Then let me rephrase. You are not free to disarm me of any of my arms, including guns. I will not let you. Is that line in the sand clear or is there some other hair to split to make my meaning understandable? Michael Sure, the line you're drawing is clear. And it is also arbitrary. Do you recognize that? The constitution says "arms". It does not say what kind. Therefore you're either supporting the rights of citizens to bear any kind of armament whatsoever or you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. Grandstanding about how you're not going to permit me to take away your guns is amusing since I'm not trying. But it's besides the point, isn't it?
  7. Okay, how in the world do you get from "individualism" to this? What feature of individualism necessarily leads to this statement? I'm pretty sure one can be a stingy individualist. I wonder if you could simply answer with clarity - do you believe that there are armaments that private citizens should not be allowed to own/possess/purchase/create?
  8. That's actually the exact opposite of my premise. My premise is that a government should prevent its citizenry from harming each other. All else is fair game. Yeah, me too. Really? So I'm gathering from this that you take the first position I spoke of... that any citizen ought to be allowed to have any weapon it chooses. Is that accurate? In other words... if the mid-eastern guy next door wants to build a dirty bomb in his basement, that's fine, right? After all, he isn't a bureaucrat. I'm not talking about arms. I'm talking about guns. You see, that's a subconcept that falls under the concept of "arms"....
  9. Gosh... wasn't prepared for such a strong argument. Excuse me while I go lick my wounds. This of course is a fallacy. No, it isn't, which is probably why you didn't name the fallacy. And i decline to jump through your hoops. If you don't know that the first amendment prohibits government endorsement of a religion then you're the one who needs to do homework, not me. But don't worry... keep on listening to mommy Palin and daddy Beck and you'll be fine. I hope one day you find yourself enjoying the theocratic utopia that those two have in mind for us one day, so long as it ain't in America.
  10. MSK, Yes, I understand everything you're saying. I am already on board with Objectivist Epistemology. In fact, that is probably the aspect of Objectivism I find most relevant to my life. Now, does the right to bear arms mean that all citizens have the right to bear any kind of armament they desire? In 1789, that *may* have been true, but there's no way to validate that. What we do know is that since that amendment was written, weapons that the men who wrote that amendment could not possibly have imagined have been created.There was no such thing as a weapon that, in the wrong hands, could destroy entire countries. That means that the men who wrote that amendment could not possibly have made provisions for such weapons. They could not have stipulated it. So those of us who live in the future (relative to the founders) have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, right? Citizens have the right to bear arms, but what kind of arms citizens are allowed to bear is not specified. So either you support citizens' right to bear *any kind of arms they like*, or you support a line in the sand. On one side of the line are arms citizens may bear, and on the other side are arms that only law enforcement or military may possess. If you support the former case... okay, then that's a different conversation. If you support the latter case, then the next step is to determine exactly where that line is. And there is no place codified in the Constitution where that line should be drawn. Therefore it is for those of us alive today to decide. If Selene is going to bring up the fact that "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, then it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the fact that the constitution doesn't mention guns. The government could conceivably permit everyone to carry a knife and outlaw guns and still be well within chapter and verse of the Constitution, if you want to play the "letter of the law" game. Or, we could dispense with those playground tactics altogether and have a real conversation about theocrats and their agenda.
  11. KacyRay

    Forgiveness

    tmj: Me too. And forgiveness in this case? Not me.
  12. KacyRay

    Forgiveness

    Can this really be healthy? Is this really a self-serving act? http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/libya-widow-teacher-forgives-attackers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
  13. The right to bear arms. No mention of guns. Oh... now suddenly the wording chosen doesn't matter? Did you mention that to Selene when he was bringing up Separation of Church and State?