Jon Letendre

Not just to the Jihadis. If I had been one of those forced to leap out a window to my death, I’m pretty sure on the way down I would not have been contemplating the impotence of those who did that to me. In the context of a dictionary, potency doesn’t convey good or bad. Potency is not moral, political or sociological, it just means power, including power to destroy. Evil is not impotent.

Wrecking balls negate. Are they impotent?

I have agreed to that multiple times.

I just checked my shelves, Brant, and all five copies are still there. Do you need a nap?

While we are being so precise - we don’t know if he does or does not watch the movie every night. Just that he did not say that he does.

Correct. And now it’s not impotent. Like I said, many posts ago. In the land of make-believe, where no one ever sanctions evil, evil is impotent. In the world we live in, evil is not impotent.

Impotent: lacking in power, strength, or vigor : HELPLESS https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impotent Is “uncreative” or any similar word listed in the synonyms for “impotent”? Synonyms hamstrung, handcuffed, helpless, high and dry, hog-tied,impuissant, paralyzed, powerless, weak

Time to pay up, whore. “United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the President is entitled to an award of his attorneys' fees against Stormy Daniels. A copy of the ruling is attached. No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels. The amount of the award for President Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date.” https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-15/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-dismissed-trump-entitled-legal-fees

That was hilarious! More “debunking” videos, please!

It is called a hydrological cycle. It snows on the continent and ice cleaves off. This has been going on for billions of years and does not indicate net ice loss. No doubt Lesley has stood riverside contemplating the day it inevitably runs out of water.

Sidestep? Are you saying I'm not debating straight-up and fairly? I don't think I sidestepped anything at all. Is what I wrote not an example of "compromise between food and poison"? I am trying to interpret her generously so that she makes sense, and I also do believe she understood there are non-lethal micro-doses of poisons. But let's assume she did not know that. Let's assume she thought that even the slightest microscopic speck of anything poisonous will kill a person. Keeping that belief about poison in mind, does the following sentence do a good job of de-emphasizing the potency of evil? -- “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit"

Her statement is in the clear if the food/poison compromise is not drops of this and portions of that with each meal, but rather whole meal compromises ... poison for breakfast, food for lunch ... Then, just one compromise is death.

I wouldn’t want to be in Billyboy’s situation. His side, which he has spent a lifetime promoting, is running around showing their ugly, demented asses in public, hysterically clamoring for blood and civil war. I’m not saying he is responding to his situation appropriately, he’s not. Just saying I am really, really, glad I am not in his lousy situation.

Brant, this feels like a word game gotcha, but I’ll put it out there anyway. “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” Wow, just one drop does the trick, So, which one possesses superior potency?

I’ve seen countless Objectivists run off with her “evil is impotent” and reach strange conclusions. Maybe it’s all her fault, maybe theirs, I don’t know for sure. On the old SOLO, we discussed the USSR and their participants who would say they would just sit back and watch it self-destruct, even if they were a direct victim, living there, between 1920s to 1990s. They asserted that no one from the outside need feel compelled to do anything, either. “Why bother?” they said. Since evil is impotent it’s doomed - so just sit back and watch it die. [USSR had already failed, we were looking back about 15 years.] I wonder how many Russians chose not to resist communism coming to power in Russia in early 20th century on just that theory. Rand has Galt saying evil only has power by default, by the good letting it have power. Yet, if we believe it is fundamentally impotent, then giving it more power can be exactly the error we make, and die from. Uncreative is the word for uncreative. Impotent means no power to effect some outcome. Evil is not impotent.