Search the Community

Showing results for 'climate doom' in content posted by Jonathan.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Product Groups

  • Widgets

Forums

  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Announcements
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
    • Objectivist Living Room Copy
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits
    • Rants
    • For The Children...
    • The Horror File Cabinet
    • Conservative News
    • Chewing on Ideas
    • Addiction
    • Objectivism in Dark Places
    • Mideast
    • PARC
    • The Garbage Pile

Calendars

  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day

Blogs

  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Categories

  • Articles

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Full Name


Description


Articles


Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

  1. Oh, no!!! Unnamed scientists have told the AP's reporters that Climate Doom is nearing the point where it can't be reversed?!!! Oh, fucking no!!!!! It must be true if scientists predicted it! Hmmm. The left has been pushing imminent catastrophe for forty years, and the predicted doomsday continues to be pushed back each time that it fails to arrive, but that just means that it MUST be true this time, right? And Trump's bumbling statement that Billy highlighted above in blue is even more proof of Climate Doom! Trump must be wrong because just look at that sentence, tee hee hee! We'd better surrender all of our freedoms immediately to save the planet. Meanwhile, the actual science that I've been requesting for years now -- repeatedly successful predictions of future outcomes -- still hasn't been presented here. Millions of pixels worth of snicker tee hees, irrelevant document dumps, opinions on top of opinions, but still no science. J
  2. Yes, and she has probably not only concluded that the one river that she was observing would run out of water, but that globally, all rivers would run out of water, that it was therefore settled science, and that it would be so, so wonderfully lovely if she could only beg and pressure Mr. President to take the issue seriously and agree that Punishments are needed to prevent universal doom. J
  3. Well, titter-snicker-tee-hee-hee! But where do you stand, Billy? Do you have a position? Which course would you recommend? How would propose that your nation navigate tariffs, unfair relationships, double standards, etc.? I know, I know: Trump is a dangerous buffoon and he is seriously risking offending our dear friends and allies by being nasty and not instantly acquiescing to their opinions and demands. Oh, dear lord, how embarrassing! How uncouth! And the forecasts of doom! Let's not forget those! My, how utterly ghastly, Maude! But what's the right course, Billy? What would you advise? Which ideas and policies aren't tee-hee-hee shamefully naive, insane, despicable, and frightfully ill-bred? J
  4. So, I've been looking online, and, sure enough, people are citing fire whirls as proof of man-made climate change. Dude, it's like the scientists totally predicted it, bro! They said, like back in the 70s or something, that extreme stuff and scary shit would happen. Well firenadoes are like totally extreme and scary shit, hoss! It's proof! They therefore nailed the prediction! That's settled science! So, we have to surrender our freedoms right now to stop the fire whirls, otherwise they will be everywhere. And worse. Other scary shit that we haven't specifically identified, and didn't know existed throughout history, will happen which we'll then say that we predicted without naming it. J
  5. Hurricanes are scary. The condition of people being scared is more likely to result in their accepting the idea of more government to stop what's scary. People who want to control over other people via climate change legislation will never predict any benefits to tiny changes in global temperature. We are doomed if we don't give up our freedoms.
  6. Al Gore's claim about Hurricane Florence doused by scientists https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/16/al-gores-hurricane-florence-claim-debunked-scienti/ Yeah, when critics point out that these assholes' predictions don't work out in reality, or that they're playing the trick of abandoning falsifiability by predicting several contradictory outcomes and then claiming success when predicting correctly but also incorrectly, the critics are just dealing in "nitpicks" and "straw men." Ha. The issue is so important that the attention that Gore has brought to the cause outweighs the falsehood of his ridiculous claims. Man-made climate change theory is more important than truth. It's settled science that it's more important than scientific truth! J
  7. Oh no! Florence is weakening! Damn! But, well, let's not cancel the wood chippers just yet. There's still hope that heavy rains will do enough damage to support the climate scare stories and convince enough people that it's time for some seriously bloody eco-justice. J
  8. Florence will prove, for once and for all, that catastrophic nightmare man-made climate change is real, and that we need to surrender all of our freedoms right fucking now. It’s going to be SO excitingly horrific! We’ll be able to use the deaths and the destruction of property to emotionally manipulate people! It’s electrifying. It’s even arousing! I feel a thrill going up my leg. Come on, Florence, roll!!!! Kill!!! Destroy!!! Yippy!!!! https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/julia-seymour/2018/09/11/washpost-hypes-category-6-future-hurricane-florence J
  9. "In fact, a side event at the Assembly of States Parties recently included a panel discussion on the possibility of adding "ecocide", environmental and climate-related crimes, to the list of offenses within the court's jurisdiction." Yay! Let's punish some deniers! That'll shut them the fuck up! Wahoo! Let's find the filth guilty of "ecocide," put a few of them through the wood chipper, and then see how quickly the remaining gore-splattered deniers switch over to the "consensus" side. Skepticism has no place in science, so let's butcher some motherfuckers and call it justice. Fuck yeah!
  10. I like to listen to the activist fake news program called The Daily on NPR. It's a New York Times product. It presents one side, sneers at the other, includes ominous music and lots of pregnant pauses. The dramatic whispery host "I'm...Mic...heal.........Bar...bar...o........Today on......The.....Dai....ly..........." usually temporarily forgets and slips out of the whispery drama once or twice per episode. He's very, very important. He should be in charge of everything. You should be made to ask him permission for stuff. Anyhoo, last night's episode was a study in political activism pretending to be journalism: When we almost stopped climate change. One side was presented. Outrageous, unsupported claims were made. Countering arguments were not heard, but were caricatured, straw-manned, mocked and vilified -- the very idea of questioning and doubting activist scientists' assertions, even way back in the 80s before climate predictions had had their chance to fail, was painted as evil, and a threat to the very existence of mankind -- and therefore the mindset is that doubt is not to be given a voice, it is not to be tolerated or considered, but needs to be silenced, sued, convicted and punished. Being skeptical and critical was presented as opposing science. There is no place in science for doubt. Scientists are to be trusted, including when making proposals outside of their areas of expertise, such as economics, politics, public policies and their consequences, etc. Human-caused, cataclysmic global warming climate change existential fucking nightmare doom was presented as having been established as factually certain, settled science as far back as 1980. Natural disasters were presented as proof of predicted consequences, while all of the failed predictions were omitted from the program. (When one's group predicts every possible outcome -- i.e. storm activity will increase, storm activity will decrease, storm activity will stay the same -- it's easy to then cite the one prediction that was correct while leaving out any mention of the contradicting predictions of the same event that were wrong, which is why falsifiability is so important to science, and why it's not to be discarded just because activists know that the trick of unfalsifiability will dupe a lot of people). No evidence was presented to support the assertion that global warming is a threat to our existence. It just fucking is, so shut the fuck up. No weighing of the pros versus cons of warmer temperature was considered. One solution was proposed to address the alleged threat to all of our lives. To oppose that solution is to be an evil denier who is harming his fellow man. You're trying to get us all killed, so you need to be snuffed. Give the program a listen. There's much more to it than I've mentioed above. It really is a fascinating study in all of the available methods of shitbaggery. J
  11. Two trends on lefty fake social media: 1) It's "settled science" which nevertheless immediately excludes potential causes without even looking at them: "OMG, have you heard these people on the right trying to blame the fires on bad forestry management policies?!!! How ridiculous! That's totally not true at all, and everyone knows it. It's not even worth considering. The cause of the fires is global warming/climate change, and nothing else, and we have to increase controls and regulations, reduce production, and punish everyone. All of the smartest people agree." 2) Creating the illusion of a scary giant monster enemy to justify commie solutions: "White supremacism is on the rise like a tsunami, and we have to do something about it right now, or else America will be over with. It's a massive wave, and it's everywhere now. The only way to stop it is with Antifa. Yes, violent Socialism/Communism is the only way to stop the overwhelmingly huge and scary movement of neo-Nazi white nationalism." J
  12. Recent example of climate douchelords lying: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/26/shocker-national-geographic-admits-they-were-wrong-about-starving-polar-bear-video/
  13. Yeah, it is about time for them to shift back to climate doom. Btw, has anyone suggested yet that the Russians' chaos/disruption/influence campaign began much earlier than anyone had thought, and that they sent Ayn Rand over here to trick us into not voting for democrats? I haven't seen it (I haven't actively looked either) but it has to be a pet theory that someone is preaching out there. J
  14. From the Popper article: "However, these ideas are intended to guide how we do science, but are not really intended to impose a set of rules that we never violate." No, they're actually rules that can't be violated. They're the defining elements of real science. They're not suggestions, or sort of kind of rough, optional guidelines which we can ignore if we feel that we want to be free to color outside the lines. Without them, we have pseudoscience. The fact that so-called scientists are beginning to advocate the idea of eliminating falsifiability, or at least sometimes skirting its requirements when things aren't working out well for their theories, is quite telling. "In most cases, the systems we’re considering are too complex for a set of simplistic rules to be applicable." Ah, the rules that govern science are "simplistic" when we want our theories to bypass them, huh? I would imagine then that logic would also be icky poopy "simplistic," since it's really no different from the notion of falsifiability. Why can't science just be about feelings? After all, it's too complex and advanced for most childish idiots and the stupid logic stuff that they believe from grade school! Are there other scientific principles which will also soon be too stinking simplistic? Perhaps prediction and testing? I mean, how inconvenient! Gosh, the little people with their elementary school ideas of science just don't understand the complexity involved in something as grand and important as our work in climate science, so their foolish rules about prediction and testing should be reconsidered. We're scientists, after all, and they're just stupid nobodies, so why should they tell us what to do? So let's skip the predictions and tests part, and just go from hypothesis to analysis. My analysis is that I feel really good and confident in the brilliance of my hypothesis! I'm amazing, and it's settled science.
  15. Lately I've been hearing and seeing hints of the idea that attacking falsifiability may be the next tactic of the alarmists. I've heard and read climate scientists being interviewed who briefly mentioned that too much has been made of the concept of falsifiability in science, that real science isn't limited to your average person's childhood science education which includes falsifiability, and that climate science is much too important and complex to be limited to having to be falsifiable. One interviewee actually said something along the lines of, "Do these deniers actually expect our predictions to be accurate? Is that what they think science is?" Sorry that I have no links. I think I'll start collecting references to these statements as I come across them from now on. J
  16. Yeah, um, did I miss something? I was asking to be shown actual scientific models/experiments which accurately predicted future observations, not an outline or summation of someone's opinions of how the science is possibly suggestive and potentially useful. I haven't declare anything "useless." Even failed models/experiments can have great use. Science is very much about learning from failed predictions. I don't know. I haven't made a catalog of failed AGW predictions/models over the years/decades, and they don't tend to remain easily publicly accessible once they've seriously gone down in flames. They just kind of disappear, much like Obama's statements about keeping your doctor or saving $2500 quietly disappearing from government healthcare websites. Maybe do a Google search for "climate model fail"? Sorry that I don't have time to be more helpful. J
  17. Yes, I mean something like a global climate model. I mean a set of predictions based on a hypothesis. I mean a proposal to be tested, such as, "If mankind produces X amount of substance Y, then temperatures will increase to Z over the specified period of time." I mean actual, real science. Testable explanations and accurate, repeatable predictions. I mean hypotheses, experimentation, observation, and, of course, the inclusion of falsifiability. J
  18. The lie used to be that "97 percent" of scientists believed in doomsday anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate stagnation/global cooling/give us power and money. Now Obama isn't satisfied with such a low number, and has changed the lie to "99.5 percent." Perhaps his method of arriving at that number "improved" on the previous method's "science," which was not to actually read and discover the scientists' views, but to program a computer to do a word search of only the abstracts of their papers and to look for a limited selection of words which were assumed to be indicators of disagreement with AGW, and if those words were not found in any give abstract, then it would be taken as proof that the author of the paper was an AGW believer/supporter/advocate. I'd love to hear what Obama's new and improved method was for adjusting the lie to 99.5 percent. J
  19. "Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris..." Heh. What a reasonable, rational, pro-science mindset! But why stop there? Why not just cut to the chase and round up all of the "deniers" and ship them off to camps where they can be forcibly reeducated or, if they refuse to change their views in the face of torture, why not just "recycle" and "compost" them? Quit pussyfooting around and get down to the true goal of torturing and killing! J
  20. Rand was very focused on the issue of volition, and I think that she did everything she could to push it in her art. It's effective, and it definitely makes her work distinctive, but I think that sometimes it's so volition-happy that it backfires: the characters sometimes come across as not being real humans who are engaged in making volitional choices, but as unreal playthings of a higher being (their creator, Rand) who are deterministically destined to serve a purpose outside of themselves (their creator's plot and message). Rand believed that determinism in literature resulted in doom and despair. She overlooked the fact that characters who are fated to be brilliant heroes and stars of their professions can just as powerfully represent determinism. J
  21. You're right. My initial comments here were aimed at AGWers in general, but then as the conversation continued here, we've drifted more toward you and your views. My intention wasn't to target you like that. I think that some of my complaints apply to you, but when I was griping about my past discussions with AGWers, I was mostly referring to others, and not to you. To me it's an issue of having seen the goalposts move year after year, due to advocates of AGW having access to multiple sets of differing predictions, and switching back and forth between them at their convenience. That's not science. Advocates often cite the most dire predictions of the most dire models as being our fate and doom. Then, when challenged by being shown that those predictions have not held up in reality, they switch to more recent, unfinished, and more reasonable tests and predictions, but lump them in with the dire ones. The attitude is that all AGW models are pretty much equivalent because they're all on "the same side," and therefore the doom is just as valid. And beyond that. Not only are all AGW models inappropriately lumped together as predicting the same doom that needs fixing with the one solution of government control over people's lives, but even stagnation and cooling -- predictions outside of any AGW model -- are claimed to be evidence of AGW! There are no possible outcomes which falsify the theory. No, you haven't let me down, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. My complaints really weren't aimed at you personally. Some may or may not apply to you. My purpose was not to attack you, but to suggest to others what I think is a potent course of action when dealing with "settled science" AGWers, especially those who have the wrongheaded view that science is about being opposed to skepticism, and who are of the mindset that they are being scientifically virtuous in believing that their case is made stronger if they admit to no conditions which would falsify their position, rather than recognizing that that "virtue" actually puts them in the realm of pseudoscience. J
  22. Seriously? You don't see, or remember, a reply from me?Maybe the problem is that you've not reread the thread closely enough to remember that it shifted over to the "Scientic Fraud becoming endemic?" thread? In the discussion, I asked you to define what you meant by "the consensus." You replied, not with specific numbers of one single scientific model, but with the vague statement "AGW is happening." You provided links to what "the consensus" means and how it was allegedly established "scientifically," I responded by revealing the unscientific slop that was used to come to that pretend consensus, and you conceded my points and backed away from your earlier implied acceptance of the slop. I continued to press for specifics on the issue of "consensus," and specifically what your views are, and you disappeared. The only actual "consensus" that the information at your own links supports is not that "AGW is happening," but that it is only "likely" happening to one vague degree or another. Yet here you are today, with all of that forgotten, and back to talking about a vague "consensus" again. For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals. [...] More close to home, a swing to world-wide temperature decreases, a cooling ocean, a resurgence of lost icefields and glaciers, a lowering of sea levels -- despite increasing CO2 -- these would cause me to get back to my climate science homework! Even sharper situations I can think of: if I live for another twenty-five years, say, until 2040. There is going to be a point on that road where I would get doubtful about my understanding. If the arctic regions of Canada began to experience a downward trend in warming. When the arctic processes reverse themselves, especially with regard to sea ice. If indicators begin to 'recover' in various regional frameworks (ie, ocean acidity, permafrost lake loss, pest-killing deep freeze winters). It comes to mind that another useful question is 'what evidence helped solidify your opinion?' I have begun laying that groundwork, I think, but await your feedback. In reading this over and digging into my Big Files, I see that there are a couple of posts by you, addressed to me in other threads, which together render a list of strong questions. I have attempted answering them -- but the answer languishes. It is one of my secret OL shames. I think it would do good for my bona fides if I went back and finished the long-owed set of answers. It's good. I wonder how one could turn this to ask of a climate-change skeptic what "outcomes in reality" would lead to doubt their 'side,'" so to speak. Or maybe 'what kinds of evidence would be likely to alter your understanding. I am one of the squirmers and skirters. It is good that Jonathan links to his questions. Since I am having a small run of extra mental energy lately, and since his questions are still pendant, I will put effort into finishing the overdue answers -- and do that first. Well, except for a note in the APS thread about the new APS climate-change statement whoopee. But i will have to let some excellent commentaries here pass by unremarked in the meantime. The questions that I asked remain unanswered. They're the ones that I asked of Naomi, and included at the end of my last post, but which you clipped and didn't address:"Okay, so, now, which single climate model and its single set of predictions represents the "scientific consensus" view and is considered to be "settled science"? Who created the model, when were its predictions made, and when were they announced publicly? How and when, and by whom, was it decided that the model's predictions had been going on long enough to have "settled" the science? How was the timeline derived for accepting the "settling" of the science? Was that timeline explicitly identified prior to the predictions being made? "Please post graphs of the model's predictions. Include visual indicators of when the predictions began, which areas are included in the "95% certainty" range, and a line representing observations recorded in reality." My questions from the "Scientific Fraud" thread also remain unanswered. As I've said, when AGWers are asked to identify the specific numbers from the single model which represents the "settled science," they punt. It seems to me that they don't want to get that specific because they need to rely on much more that one predicted outcome, and, in fact, they need to be able to claim ALL possible outcomes as supporting their theory. The pseudoscience of unfalsifiabilty. J
  23. Discussions on climate change are usually very much like discussions on conspiracy theories. They quickly devolve into mounds and mounds of details and pointless bickering over minutiae because no one began by laying the groundwork of identifying specifically what would constitute either proof or falsifiability. The believers are therefore left with the constant option of skirting the issue of falsifiability, and therefore of practicing pseudoscience and passing it off as science. Everything is accepted as proof of their position, and there is no possible falsification. They will not name or accept any possible outcomes as disproving their theory. I would suggest that instead of skipping the vitally important first step of demanding -- requiring -- that they identify what outcomes in reality would falsify their theory, and instead of falling into the trap of then addressing their billions of irrelevant questions and information dumps, one should insist that they first identify the conditions which would they would accept as disproving their predictions/theories/conclusions. As Rand would advise, identify the essence of the argument, and stick with it rather than falling for inessential distractions. When I've done so, I've never yet received a legitimate answer. I've received lots of bluffing and I'll-get-back-to-you-laters, but no naming of the possible outcomes which would disprove their positions. When I've applied persistence, and kept throwing the issue of falsifiability in their faces, despite their best efforts to squirm and skirt the issue, they tended to eventually just dry up and disappear. Here's one example of the culmination of such persistence on the APS and the Global Warming Scam thread: I received no answers to my questions. And I didn't get tangled up in mounds of bluffing and endless document dumping. J
  24. Jonathan, you're behaving like an envious liberal failure who imagines privilege where there is none. Are you trying to claim that unlicensed people are free to compete with licensed electricians in all areas of electrical work? Are you claiming that there are no regulations which prevent them from selling any and all of their services to whomever they choose while not being licensed by the state? Are you trying to peddle the falsehood that the state does not use the initiation of force, or the threat of the initiation of force, against unlicensed electricians who simply wish to sell their services without the government's permission and restrictions? We are not living in a "Capitalist private sector free market." A system which imposes licensing and regulation on businesses is not properly called a "Capitalist private sector free market." No one has claimed otherwise. Indeed, some are much better, but, despite being better, they are prevented by the state from doing tasks which the state allows only licensed electricians to do. Try to pay attention, Apey. The issue is not that there is or is not "work here for all of us." The issue is that the state forcibly prevents what you call mere "handymen" from competing with licensed electricians. The "handymen" will be punished by the state if they perform certain tasks without a license from the state. Address the actual issue here, rather than trying to slither out of if with your really lame Clinton-esque maneuvers. I'm saying I do very well regardless of a license because I'm decent responsible competent and honest. Does that mean that you don't have a license or that you do? Are you saying that you do have a license, but that you'd do just as well without one? Are you just arbitrarily asserting that the license has had no impact, no benefit at all, on the amount of money you've made compared to what you could make without it? When a state mandates licenses and prevents unlicensed competitors from entering the field in any and all capacities that they choose, it is not a "voluntary" system. When a state-licensed electrician is protected via government initiation of force from having to compete with unlicensed electricians, he is not dealing in a voluntary system. You're being a Clinton. There IS a difference between a license and a degree. A HUGE difference. A license involves the state's use of force. But your attitude is pretty common among people who benefit from government force. They tend to downplay the involuntary nature of the benefits that they receive. People on welfare, for example, will say that there's no difference between welfare and charity, just as you say that there's no difference between a license and a degree. Yeah, when you can't answer questions, and when your Clinton-esque equivocations and distractions don't work, your last resort is always to try to put a magic hex on me. My disagreeing with any position of yours, or catching you in one of your many moments of stupidity, is going to bring me doom! J
  25. The only scene in Rand's novels which I think would qualify as producing an imaginal semblance of a full-fledged Kantian sublime type of emotional response is the one where a break in a smelting furnace happens at the Rearden mills. An event overwhelming to "the senses" and presenting frightful danger overcome with decisive action probably enacted in an exhilarated joy-tinged state. The Winston Tunnel disaster is horrific, but the narrative indicates that the people on the passenger train had likely passed out from smoke inhalation before the freight train hit the passenger train. The people in the cab of that train would have had only moments of ghastly anticipation of their doom. No overcoming possible with the walls of the tunnel collapsing. Dominique's exhilarated state during the Cortlant dynamiting meets the specs in terms of her reaction, but the event is distanced for the reader, since the noise and falling rubble happen quietly off stage. I think that the general emotional frame of Rand's fiction makes it a good candidate for the "unsettling" variant of "the aesthetic of the strange," as described briefly in the post above. Ellen Heh. Electron Ellen is so lost in the act of 'lectron chasin' individual scenes from Rand's art that she can't see the big picture Sublime? Say it aint so! Okay, so, let's try to focus on the big picture. In Rand's art, she presents the individual against the what? What threatening and destructive phenomena did Rand's art present as gray and shapeless, and as being "everywhere and nowhere"? When Galt sought to stop the motor of the world, was he speaking of actually physically stopping the Earth from turning, or was he talking about something else? What was he rising against? Was it of immense magnitude? Was it a powerful, threatening and destructive force? Which entities did Rand's fictional characters speak of as using "terror in place of proof," of using "fear as your weapon" and of "the horrors they practice." Which phenomena did her heroes describe as having "horrors are their ends," and that "their bloodiest horrors are unleashed to punish the crime of thinking"? To what or whom did the heroes ascribe "the terror of unreason," and as being "expert at contriving means of terror," and of "giving you ample cause to feel the fear"? Which phenomena did the heroes in Rand's art, as well as readers, feel their power to resist and rise above? J