Recommended Posts

The Giuliani take on the indictments ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some people are thinking!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What fuels this kind of deranged leftist lying scumbaggery?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of New Mexico

Previously Convicted Sex Offender from Albuquerque Arraigned on Federal Child Pornography Charges

If Convicted, James Highfield Faces Enhanced Penalty of Statutory Mandatory Minimum of 35 Years to Life Imprisonment Due to Prior Sex Offense Convictions; Prosecution Brought Under Project Safe Childhood

ALBUQUERQUE – James Highfield, 63, of Albuquerque, N.M., was arraigned this morning in federal court on an indictment charging him with child pornography offenses and committing a federal sex offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender.  Highfield entered a not guilty plea to the charges during this morning’s arraignment hearing.  Highfield was ordered detained pending trial based on judicial findings that he poses a risk of flight and a danger to the community.

 

 

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Western District of Missouri

KC Man Sentenced to 11 Years for Child Pornography

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Kansas City, Mo., man was sentenced in federal court today for sharing child pornography over the Internet.

Michael Vandergriff, 56, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes to 11 years in federal prison without parole. The court also sentenced Vandergriff to supervised release for the rest of his life following incarceration.

 

 

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of New Jersey

Bergen County, New Jersey, Man Sentenced to 63 Months in Prison for Purchasing Live Webcam Shows of Child Sexual Abuse

NEWARK, N.J. – A Wallington, New Jersey, man was sentenced today to 63 months in prison for purchasing live child sex shows from individuals overseas, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Stephen Hallett, 67, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty to an information charging him with receipt of child pornography. Judge McNulty imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

 

 

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of Louisiana

Tickfaw Man Sentenced for Possession of Child Pornography

VERNON SWEENEY, JR. (“SWEENEY”), age 52, of Tickfaw, Louisiana, was sentenced today for possession of child pornography, announced United States Attorney Duane A. Evans.

On October 12, 2017, law enforcement officers with the Louisiana State Police and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, arrested SWEENEY during the execution of a state search warrant at his Tickfaw home after finding that SWEENEY was in possession of several items, including a laptop computer, thumb drives and cellular phones that contained images depicting the sexual victimization of prepubescent children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anatomy of an analogy ...

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

How does one figure out a useful and fully-apt analogy for this apparent tergiversation?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
After most people in my life have disowned me, I was asked if I regret being a Trump supporter. I regret nothing. The conservative community is the most welcoming & supportive out there. You folks on the Trump Train keep me standing proud to do what I do. Thanks for the love!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Dear white liberals, if you try to shame me for being a black Trump supporter, we will have a problem. Don’t tell me I’m a racist when it’s clear you are the bigoted one. Because I’m black I’m not allowed to think for myself? Let me support my damn president in peace. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

How does one figure out a useful and fully-apt analogy for this apparent tergiversation?

I have one.

The fake news is acting toward President Trump like a KKK lynch mob holding a kangaroo court on a black man right before hanging him.

That's about as accurate an analogy as I can come up with for the behavior of the fake news side. It breaks down on the black man about to be hung side because President Trump does not correspond well to a helpless victim when he's constantly kicking the fake news's ass.

:) 

I saw the interview where President Trump, standing right beside Prime Minister May, said the UK fake news did not present his words accurately, but fortunately, he has a recording of the interview with The Sun for all to enjoy. And the PM was giving indications of backing him up in what he was saying.

Between this and the words of Sun video above, I didn't hear him say anything near The Sun's headline, "May Has Wrecked Brexit... The US Deal is Off."

That's fake news.

Of course, I don't yet have an analogy for people who present the fake news as if it's a gotcha when they know all this, but I can conjure one up if needed.

Helpfully,

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Argument by analogy is fraught, he said quietly, into the void of understanding.  

William,

Sometimes it is necessary when people have emotional blocks, are blinded by their culture, or don't understand something technical.

Richard Feynman, for example, was very fond of analogies for conveying science.

Here's another example. If you were to try to convince fanatical Muslims to not throw a homosexual off a building roof, I doubt a gotcha would work.

:) 

Only an analogy is capable of penetrating the brainwashing they have had. And even then, it does not convince. When it works, it only gets them to see there is a different angle they haven't considered because it relates their behavior to something else they are familiar with.

This is the process with brainwashed people. First they have to see that the world is bigger than their bubble. And that means they have to question the legitimacy of the bubble as a boundary on truth and understanding the world. They have to imagine there is truth outside the bubble they can observe that they haven't thought was possible.

Only after that can reason and other forms of rational persuasion penetrate.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

You sound like a 12 year old girl.

And you absorbed nothing of Rand’s teachings on initiation vs retaliation.

Your thoughts on this topic are worthless.

Worthless or not, here we go -

Rand's teachings on initiation vs reaction, as she walked her talk, depended entirely on whom she wanted to attack, and she could always justify it as retaliatory., always. Part of her infuriating genius.  Keep studying, you will get it right someday.

And I mean that sincerely, as I have meditated upon my mission on earth, as I do daily now that my days grow short, and I have found that one of my last tasks, Jon Letendre,, is to Save your Soul. To bring you out of the nighttime, and to help you fly spiritually , and be born again in the spirit at the altar of St. Burton Cummings.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caroljane said:

Worthless or not, here we go -

Rand's teachings on initiation vs reaction, as she walked her talk, depended entirely on whom she wanted to attack, and she could always justify it as retaliatory., always. Part of her infuriating genius.  Keep studying, you will get it right someday.

And I mean that sincerely, as I have meditated upon my mission on earth, as I do daily now that my days grow short, and I have found that one of my last tasks, Jon Letendre,, is to Save your Soul. To bring you out of the nighttime, and to help you fly spiritually , and be born again in the spirit at the altar of St. Burton Cummings.

You need a shower, I can smell you from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You be you, we be we. Don't wanna flame? Then don't. Sooth and mend instead. Wanna flame? Dump some gas on the fire.

We be we Jonathan?

I would hope you are not slipping into some loose collectivist trap.

How about I will be me, you can be you (I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts).

PS: have not had any decent owl pics in a while, working on it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

PS: have not had any decent owl pics in a while, working on it!

Jules,

I've been working on learning how to draw, starting with owls.

Here's one method I've been studying, but it's taking time for some damn reason.

 

07.14.2018-01.17.png

 

:)

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about the circle method is, no matter what position your subject is in it really helps with proportions when it comes to viewing angle/perspective.

I have a couple books on this method for both birds and insects, had them since I was 7.

HHHhhhere is another FANTASTIC book!

 

http://drawright.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, caroljane said:

Worthless or not, here we go -

Rand's teachings on initiation vs reaction, as she walked her talk, depended entirely on whom she wanted to attack, and she could always justify it as retaliatory., always.

Now this is interesting, a path to some potential substance, and maybe to a diversion from the flame wars. Do you have any examples, Carol, of what you mean in saying the above? Do you mean that she, personally, didn't abide by her own principle of not initiating force, or do you mean that she supported or advocated for government policies which were initiations of force (while claiming that they weren't)?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

We be we Jonathan?

I would hope you are not slipping into some loose collectivist trap.

How about I will be me, you can be you (I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts).

PS: have not had any decent owl pics in a while, working on it!

Heh. No, you be you, each of the rest of us will also be ourselves.

As for owl pics, I love the one that I bought, and there was a specific other one that I had my eye on. But I'm not only all 'bout dem owls. It's more about the overall effect, not the specific subject matter. I'm no Leonard Peikoff who won't accept or listen to a complimentary CD from a professional musician and likeminded soul because I like or don't like certain instruments.

I hope you're still enjoying your talents.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Mueller investigation near its end?  It's an interesting question -- what evidence supports the premise? 

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think Mueller is trying to wind down.

Rosenstein just announced the indictment of 12 Russians for hacking the DNC, etc. etc. etc. And he specifically mentioned the GNU.

GNU == GRU

Quote

One of those defendants and a 12th russian military officer are charged with conspiring to infiltrate computers of organizations involved in administering election, including state boards of election, secretaries of state and companies that supply software used to administer elections.

According to the allegations in the indictment, the defendants worked for two units of the main intelligence directorate of the Russian general staff known as the G.R.U. The unit  engaged in active cyber operations to interfere in the 2016 presidential direction. There was one unit that engaged in active cyber operations by stealing information and a different unit that was responsible for disseminating stolen information.

The defendants used two techniques to steal information. First they used the scheme known as spear fishing which involves sending misleading email messages and tricking the users into disclosing their pass words and security information. Second, the defendants hacked into computer networks and installed malicious software that allowed them to spy on users and capture key strokes, take screen shots, and ex-filtrate or remove data from those computers.

The defendants accessed email accounts of volunteers and employees of a U.S. Presidential campaign. Including a campaign chairman starting in march of 2016. They also hacked into the computer networks of a congressional campaign committee and a national political committee. The defendants covertly monitored the computers and planted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code and stole emails and other documents.

The conspirators created fictitious online personas, including D.C. Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 and used those to release information including thousands of stolen emails and other documents, beginning in June of 2016. They falsely claimed that dD.C. Leaks with was a group of D.C. Hackers and that Guccifer 2.0 was a lone Romanian hacker. Both were created and controlled by the Russian G.R.U.

In addition to releasing documents directly to the public, the defendants transferred stolen documents to another organization that is not identified by name in the indictment and they used that organization as a pass through to release documents. They discussed the timing of the release and attempt to enhance the impact on the election. In an effort to conceal their connections to Russia, the departments used a network of computers around the world and they paid for it using Crypto-currencies.

The conspirators corresponded with several Americans during the course of the conspiracy through the internet. There's no allegation in this indictment that the Americans knew they were corresponding with Russian intelligence officers.

In a second related conspiracy, Russian G.R.U. Officers hacked the website of a state election board and stole information about 500,000 voters.

They also hacked into computers of a company that supplies software used to verify voter registration information. They targeted state and local officials responsible for administering elections and they sent spearfishing emails to people involved in administering elections including attaching malicious software.

The indictment includes 11 criminal allegations and a forfeiture allegation, count one charges 11 defendants for conspiring to access computers without authorization and to damage those computers in connection with efforts to interfere with the presidential election. Counts two through nine charge those 11 defendants with aggravated identity theft by employing user names and passwords of victims in order to commit computer fraud.

Count 10 charges those 11 defendants with money laundering for transferring crypto-currencies through a web of transactions in order to purchase computer servers, register domains and make other payments in furtherance of their hacking activities while trying to conceal their connections to Russia.

Count 11 charges two defendants for separate conspiracy to access computers without authorization and to damage those computers in connection with efforts to infiltrate computers used to administer elections.

Finally, the indictment seeks forfeiture of property involved in the criminal activity.

There's no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There's no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.

The special counsel's investigation is ongoing and there will be no comments on special counsel at this time. Assistant attorney general John demurs is here with me today because we intend to transition responsibility for this indictment to the justice department's national security division while we await the apprehension of the defendants. Principal associate deputy attorney general ed o'callaghan is also with me, he's been assisting in managing the special counsel investigation.

I want to caution you that people who speculate about federal investigations usually do not know all of the relevant facts. We do not try cases on television or in congressional hearings. Most anonymous leaks are not from the government officials who are actually conducting these investigations. We follow the rule of law. Which means that we follow procedures. And we reserve judgment. We complete our investigations and we evaluate all the relevant evidence before we reach any conclusion. That is how the American people expect their department of justice to operate and that's how our department is going to operate.

Our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. It should go without saying that people who are not charged with a crime also are presumed innocent. The indictment was returned today because prosecutors determined that the evidence was sufficient to present these allegations to a federal grand jury.

Our analysis is based solely on the facts, law, and department of justice policy. I briefed President Trump about these allegations earlier this week. The President is fully aware of the department's actions today.

In my remarks, I have not identified the victims. We confront foreign interference in American elections, it's important for us to avoid thinking politically as Republicans or Democrats. And instead to think patriotically as Americans. Our response must not depend on which side is victimized.

The internet allows foreign adversaries to attack america in new and unexpected ways. Free and fair elections are always hard fought and contentious. There will always be adversaries who seek to exacerbate our divisions and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us. So long as we are united, in our commitment to the values enshrined in the Constitution, they will not succeed.

The partisan warfare fueled by modern technology does not fairly reflect the grace, dignity and unity of the American people. Blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who committed election interference. We need to work together to hold perpetrators accountable. We need to keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future interference, and defend america. I have time to take a few questions.

If it seems to some that the special counsel investigation is being 'wrapped up' or 'wound down,' then it may be useful to contrast and compare previous investigations (special or independent counsel or not):

mueller1yearIn.png

-- as for the "why didn't the DNC 'hand over' the server/s?" -- this analysis makes a case that OL's computer and network experts can consider: The FBI Was Denied Access to the DNC’s Server. But, Does it Matter?

Speaking 'Truth to Power,' or speaking 'Power to Truth'?

The best answer includes the response of the House Majority Leader at the time ... Mitch McConnell '“made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.” In other words, McConnell not only refused to condemn a foreign spy operation, he threatened to retaliate against his country’s efforts to defend itself. (McConnell has argued that a letter he later co-signed with other congressional leaders constituted an appropriate reaction to Russian meddling, but the letter in question literally did not use the word “Russia.”'

-- in other news, the Trump-whisperer Roger Stone is caught between two versions of reality:

If you haven't given an Objectivish reading of the indictments yet, I include the full text embed here: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I claim that analogies ... are apt or in-apt.  Who decides?  When is an analogy a "just-so story," or a fanciful illustration, and when can one use it to inform and broaden understanding of a difficult or somewhat paradoxical concept?

I believe that analogies are fraught when used in argument as a replacement for argument. 

On 7/13/2018 at 2:44 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sometimes it is necessary when people have emotional blocks, are blinded by their culture, or don't understand something technical.

Do you include yourself in "people"?  Moreover, how would you diagnose a so-called "emotional block" in yourself as opposed to others?  Do you heed others if they suggest you have an 'emotional block'?

Quote

Richard Feynman, for example, was very fond of analogies for conveying science.

Eg, ? **   ["Feynman used analogies. I use analogies.  Feynman's use of analogies is analogous to my own. For the strength of (un-cited) Feynman analogies, please assume my own always have the strength and utility of his. Okay? Thanks.  I make good analogies. So did he. Fair?"]

Quote

Here's another example. If you were to try to convince fanatical Muslims to not throw a homosexual off a building roof, I doubt a gotcha would work.

In this analogy, when you say "you," do you mean me, or do you mean "one"?  If you were trying to destroy ISIS practices, I suggest you go to war, you use force, deadly force. Of course one could insert an analogy to cover a lack of knowledge or expertise in counter-terrorism ...

Highlighting an emotive situation ('fanatics' committing murder against suspected homosexuals) is to what purpose?  Loaded language ...

Quote

Only an analogy is capable of penetrating the brainwashing they have had.

Well, this veers into purple prose -- and cannot be verified, since 'they' is unspecified beyond 'the brainwashed are brainwashed.'  

Which is the cognitive equivalent of goo.

Quote

And even then, it does not convince. When it works, it only gets them to see there is a different angle they haven't considered because it relates their behavior to something else they are familiar with.

This is vague, vague, vague. And it doesn't work when it is applied to "you," does it?  It only applies to the unspecified Them. This is in my opinion a series of assertions. The object and subject are obscured in vague language. 

Quote

This is the process with brainwashed people. First they have to see that the world is bigger than their bubble. And that means they have to question the legitimacy of the bubble as a boundary on truth and understanding the world.

"Brainwashed people" like 'you'? Bubble only for thee and never for me.

Quote

They have to imagine there is truth outside the bubble they can observe that they haven't thought was possible.

Only after that can reason and other forms of rational persuasion penetrate.

They, them, they, bubble, possible ... this is unpersuasive.

Please consider the difference between an apt analogy and a weak, misleading,  or fallacious analogy. If your arguments can acknowledge that there will be good/useful analogies, then your arguments can also acknowledge there will be poorly constructed analogies.

_____________________________

** Feynmann, analogizing?

“Electrons, when they were first discovered, behaved exactly like particles or bullets, very simply. Further research showed, from electron diffraction experiments for example, that they behaved like waves. As time went on there was a growing confusion about how these things really behaved ---- waves or particles, particles or waves? Everything looked like both.

This growing confusion was resolved in 1925 or 1926 with the advent of the correct equations for quantum mechanics. Now we know how the electrons and light behave. But what can I call it? If I say they behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called a quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before. Your experience with things that you have seen before is incomplete. The behavior of things on a very tiny scale is simply different. An atom does not behave like a weight hanging on a spring and oscillating. Nor does it behave like a miniature representation of the solar system with little planets going around in orbits. Nor does it appear to be somewhat like a cloud or fog of some sort surrounding the nucleus. It behaves like nothing you have seen before.

There is one simplication at least. Electrons behave in this respect in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way….

The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, "But how can it be like that?" which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

 

Edited by william.scherk
Minor spelling correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I claim that analogies ... are apt or in-apt.  Who decides?  When is an analogy a "just-so story," or a fanciful illustration, and when can one use it to inform and broaden understanding of a difficult or somewhat paradoxical concept?

I believe that analogies are fraught when used in argument as a replacement for argument. 

The following books might help answer your questions.

Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought

The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, merjet said:

The following books might help answer your questions.

Thanks for the reading suggestions for me (and perhaps Michael). I'd still like to read your opinion  about argument-by-analogy as offered above, if you had one ready ...

- from the first book's blurb at Amazon.

Analogy―recalling familiar past situations to deal with novel ones―is a mental tool that everyone uses. Analogy can provide invaluable creative insights, but it can also lead to dangerous errors. In Mental Leaps two leading cognitive scientists show how analogy works and how it can be used most effectively. Keith Holyoak and Paul Thagard provide a unified, comprehensive account of the diverse operations and applications of analogy, including problem solving, decision making, explanation, and communication. Holyoak and Thagard present their own theory of analogy, considering its implications for cognitive science in general, and survey examples from many other domains. These include animal cognition, developmental and social psychology, political science, philosophy, history of science, anthropology, and literature.Understanding how we draw analogies is important for people interested in the evolution of thinking in animals and in children; for those whose focus is on either creative thinking or errors of everyday reasoning; for those concerned with how decisions are made in law, business, and politics; and for those striving to improve education. Mental Leaps covers all of this ground, emphasizing the principles that govern the use of analogy and keeping technical matters to a minimum.A Bradford Book

-- from the blurb of the second book cited:

Analogy has been the focus of extensive research in cognitive science over the past two decades. Through analogy, novel situations and problems can be understood in terms of familiar ones. Indeed, a case can be made for analogical processing as the very core of cognition. This is the first book to span the full range of disciplines concerned with analogy. Its contributors represent cognitive, developmental, and comparative psychology; neuroscience; artificial intelligence; linguistics; and philosophy. The book is divided into three parts. The first part describes computational models of analogy as well as their relation to computational models of other cognitive processes. The second part addresses the role of analogy in a wide range of cognitive tasks, such as forming complex cognitive structures, conveying emotion, making decisions, and solving problems. The third part looks at the development of analogy in children and the possible use of analogy in nonhuman primates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Thanks for the reading suggestions for me (and perhaps Michael). I'd still like to read your opinion  about argument-by-analogy as offered above, if you had one ready ...

What specific "argument-by-analogy as offered above" by whom?

Regarding the good or useful side of analogy, I suggest a look at Chapter 8 of Mental Leaps. It presents quite a few analogies used in science. They can be seen using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature.

I read both books several years ago and still own them. I like Thagard. And he's Canadian! ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, merjet said:
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Thanks for the reading suggestions for me (and perhaps Michael). I'd still like to read your opinion  about argument-by-analogy as offered above, if you had one ready ...

What specific "argument-by-analogy as offered above" by whom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...