Michael Stuart Kelly

LOL... Virginia Governor Northam had a Train Wreck Week

Recommended Posts

Bring out the Bissell vacuum cleaner! More to chew on. Parental rights and obligations.

From: AchillesRB Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:23:33 -0400 Subject: Re: OWL: Caused Helplessness, Freedom of Action, Rational Being, " "Individu...

I previously wrote: "...since an ambiguity is an ambiguity, whether it's in oral or written remarks. And when we look at pp. 113-114 of "Man's Rights," we see that Rand says, "A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort." And "the right to life...does ~not~ mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.""
 

Eyal Mozes commented: "Roger, I find your statement very confusing. Are you saying that there's an ambiguity in Rand's statement you quote? If so, what is the ambiguity?"
 
Rand's statement rules out situations she would not want to rule out, such as one's being obligated to provide "the necessities of life" to someone that one had by one's own actions turned into a quadriplegic. (Or to a helpless baby or child one had brought into the world.) A common sense reading of this statement takes it not as a Stirnirite denial of one's special responsibility toward those one has caused to be helpless human beings, but as a general denial of responsibility toward those one has NOT caused to be helpless -- however, all too many Objectivists instead embrace the former and use that as evidence for the view that Rand would deny that children have a right to support. A statement that is susceptible of two conflicting interpretations is ambiguous in my book, Eyal.
 
 I further wrote: "Certainly that appears to close the door on there being a right of children to be supported by their parents, but just as certainly we can object and say that Rand was speaking generally and was not speaking to the ~special circumstance~ of someone's having been ~caused~ by another person to be in a position of physical ~helplessness~."
 
Eyal protested: "On what basis would you make such an objection? You haven't pointed out any ambiguity [I JUST DID] in Rand's statement that could suggest she had in mind any special circumstance exceptions to the principle; and Rand's statement seems totally clear and explicit. If you want to argue that her statement should be corrected because there are special circumstance exceptions that she missed, OK; but I see no basis you can have for claiming she had such special circumstance exceptions in mind."
 
It is clear and explicit, as a ~general~ statement. But who is to say she didn't have in mind "special circumstance exceptions," especially when she was supervising both Branden and Peikoff (1976 lectures Q-A) and they explicitly stated that the child's support is his by right. Peikoff in particular said that the view that "a child has no right to be fed by his parents...is ~not~ a statement of the Objectivist viewpoint," and that "if you did ~not~ choose to abort the child and he is now in existence, he is a human being and he has the ~rights~ of a human being and he is entirely your responsibility until he reaches the age of maturity and can support himself." That also seems consistent with the Q-A remarks Rand was quoted as having said....But back to her essay "Man's Rights." It's important to realize that she was railing against generalized, unchosen obligations and the alleged "rights" that those attached to, so there was no strong reason for her to tack on additional special case remarks about specific, chosen obligations and the real rights to support that those attach to.

Eyal continues: "You also claim that Rand's quoted statement contradicts Will Thomas's argument; but I don't see any basis for that claim. On the contrary, since Rand's statement clearly and unambiguously contradicts the idea of ascribing to a child a right to support from his parents, it contradicts the argument you present in the rest of your post, as well as the arguments presented by Bill Dwyer and by Ellen Moore; whatever the merits of your or Bill's or Ellen's theories as corrections to Rand's view, they clearly don't work as *interpretations* of Rand's view. In contrast, Will Thomas's theory is that parents' obligations to the child can be justified without ascribing any such rights (or any actual rights at all) to the child; that is completely consistent with Rand's statement."

First, as noted above, Rand's statement ~is~ ambiguous, and on Eyal's strained Stirnite interpretation, not only are my, Bill's, and Ellen's views rejected, but also Will Thomas's view. Will is arguing, after all, on the basis not (as we are) of an ~actual, present~ right of the child, but of his ~potential, future~ rights. If a child's actual, present rights do not mean that "others must provide him with the necessities of life," then how can in the world can Will or Eyal tease this obligation out of the child's ~potential, future~ rights?? That, Eyal, is the basis for my claim that Rand's statement contradicts Will's theory.
 
Eyal continues: "The rest of Roger's post is focused on trying to defend a child's right to support from his parents, by arguing from analogy to an accident victim. Since I already anticipated and answered this argument in my post of April 9, let me quote my answer from there:
 
A better analogy might be if you cause someone an injury, deliberately or by negligence. You then have an obligation to compensate the victim, pay for his medical care, and possibly for his sustenance if he has lost the ability to earn wages for a time. This is a somewhat better analogy, because you do have two separate actions - injuring the victim and then compensating him - with one action creating the obligation to perform the other. In this case, It may be a convenient shorthand to say that the injury victim "has a right" to compensation from the injurer, but this would not be an accurate use of the concept of right. Rights define and sanction a man's freedom of action. And a right imposes on *everyone* the obligation to respect it; you can't have a right that some particular person is obliged to respect while others are allowed to ignore.
 
Who says others are allowed to ignore this obligation? To the contrary, they must ~respect~ it by acknowledging that if they, too, are in a similar circumstance with respect to someone (baby, child, or adult) that they have caused to be a physically helpless human being, they, too, must assume legal responsibility for that person's support. That is, they must acknowledge the universality of the principle of one's responsibility for helplessness one causes in another human being.

F
urther, they must do nothing to forcibly interfere with the life and support of the person whose rights I am respecting by supporting and not starving or otherwise killing them by inaction.

Eyal again: An obligation by a specific person, to perform a positive action, is so  essentially different from a right, that referring to it as a "right" can only cause conceptual confusion. The injurer's obligation to compensate the victim is a *result* of the victim's rights - specifically, of the fact that the injury violated the victim's rights - but it is inaccurate to describe that obligation as itself a right of the victim.
 
There is a conceptual confusion here, and that is the idea that anyone is trying to equate obligations and rights. They are not equivalent. They are corollaries. In regard to your rights, I have obligations to respect them and refrain from violating them, and vice versa. If I promise to pay you $1000 in exchange for a used automobile, and then I take the automobile and run, you have the right to demand and extract $1000 from me, and I have the obligation to fork it over.

I
f I bring a baby into the world, and then I run off and leave the baby homeless, the baby's agent (the state) has the right to demand and extract support money from me, and I have the obligation to cough it up (though a better, cheaper solution would be to put the baby up for adoption, which is why the law usually does not pursue mothers who abandon their children, if they survive abandonment intact).

Eyal again: Anyway, the injury example is still not a very good analogy to a parent's obligations towards a baby. Consider two important disanalogies. First, the reason the injurer is obligated to compensate the victim is because his action, in causing the injury, violated the victim's rights. This has no analogy to the case of a baby; people may disagree on whether a baby has rights or not, but I think we can all agree that giving birth to a baby is not in itself a violation of the baby's rights. So if we're trying to justify the idea that giving birth to a baby creates an obligation to take care of it, the injury analogy doesn't fit. Second, the actions that the injurer is obligated to take, in compensating the victim, do not involve coercing the victim. In contrast, the actions that parents are obligated to take, in taking care of their child, do involve coercing the child; these are actions that can only be allowed to the extent that the child does not have rights; which makes it self- contradictory to claim that these obligations are a result of the child's rights.
 
The analogy I draw is ~not~ based on being injured as an adult vs. being born as a baby. That, of course, is a ~disanalogy~. The parallel I draw is based on an adult and a baby both being placed, by one's actions, in a position of helplessness, of inability to act freely in the support of their own lives.

 Y

es, the first case is the result of a violation of rights, and the second isn't; but focusing on that level of abstraction is only going to highlight the disanalogy. The common factor, the ~principle~, involved, is that when you cause another person to be unable to exercise his right to life (to support his life by his own work), you are obligated to take care of him until/unless he is able to do so. To grasp this principle, you have to be willing to rise above the concrete level of the differences between the two categories of caused helplessness.

Eyal once more: I would add, more generally, that I think reasoning by analogy is not a very useful form of reasoning for considering the subject of the parent-child relationship. The parent-child relationship is so different from other human relationships, in so many essential characteristics, that you just can't find good analogies to it.
 
Reasoning by analogy works best when you think on the relevant level of abstraction and set aside secondary, concrete-level dissimilarities in favor of the essential common factor involved. The caused helplessness model has the requisite level of generality to do the work we need for a theory about the support of both babies/children and accident/assault victims.  Best 2 all, Roger Bissell, proud father and supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obligation and rights as corollaries - and "caused helplessness" (from RB) is a great entree which exposes the limit of the non-initiation of force principle. What happens when you don't -actively- commit harm (IOF), but do harm by omission to someone in your care? I get the idea that there's no libertarian/rights answer to that. NIOF and rights don't have a ready answer for child-rearing (that I've read), and some arguments are lame or ridiculous..

If one has caused a state of physical helplessness in another individual, it follows that you've curtailed his future freedom of action, his individual rights, and so are obligated to compensate him (in action or finance). Bringing a child into existence is actually also "caused helplessness" - acts done by one, and not done (like an early abortion) which ultimately created a child, whom the parent/s has the obligation to nurture until it can fend for itself.

A following point being, that the state and laws by intervening here, are not imposing on the rights (or body) of the mother, etc., but protecting the "helplessness" of the child (or late-stage fetus - I argue) while in its mother's supposed care. What govt. should only do: defend the rights of free action (and to future action) of one from others, and uphold any implicit obligations. In this case, to protect infant from parent.

Good thoughts from Roger, again. Thanks, Peter.

Share this post


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

I thought a language built on a mythical cultural image was stupid. I haven't re-watched it but I think Picard eventually gets through to those morons. I doubt the alien characters, as portrayed, would have advanced into  . . . an iron age?     

Picardoverse. Space: the final Picard. These are the voyages of the Picard flying box. Its continuing mission: to explore strange non Picard places, to seek out new Picards and new Picard living communities, to boldly go where Un - Picards have never gone before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 7:47 PM, Peter said:

That "medical procedure" is as bad as the mass murdering of Jews by the Nazi's.  

I take your meaning, Peter. The procedure is too horrible to contemplate deserving strong emotional response. If there is even a small possibility in her mind that this third trimester fetus has achieved human, sentient life (not to add, viability and RB's  "center of consciousness") - and everything points that way - a woman, most women, especially conservative and also secular, will not take the chance, but have the conviction to avoid that scenario like the plague. Most women and prospective mothers have the self-respect and respect for infant life, too much, to allow a pregnancy to continue so far, to then abort. Since she has exceeded her early-term 'period of grace' when being able to choose what an Objectivist would call, and is, a morally-selfish choice. If she once did, but doesn't want or is unable to care for the child now, owing, say, to a severe, drastic, unforseen change in her living circumstances, she - naturally - has the recourse of carrying the child a little longer until birth, then have it adopted. But the same option is available to the woman who never wanted a child in the first place but casually and irrationally goes close to full-term before deciding to act, one who insists abortion "on demand" is her "right". Therefore, there is ~no~ justification for the late "procedure" (outside of health and life-threatening instances). Freedom (to abortion, also) doesn't come without self-responsibility.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m good with executing every lawmaker who voted for it, the Governor who signed it and every mother and doctor who commits it. As an old lady once put it, people who systematically destroy rights have no rights. Let’s really get this rolling — I’d like to see a state pass a law that if you murder a doctor who does this, you get any assets that doctor had in that state, after your trial and exoneration. So, Florida could pass this law and the angel gets the Dr’s house in Florida. (You wouldn’t be exonerated by a Chicago jury, but you would by other Illinois juries, so you get him/her when they are picnicking in your conservative IL town, or on vacation in their FL house, so the trial will be there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pound for pound unborn baby parts are worth more. It's psych-ops to normalize later abortions( post 1st trimester). Threats of infanticide are a canard , a negotiating point to pull back from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tmj said:

Pound for pound unborn baby parts are worth more. It's psych-ops to normalize later abortions( post 1st trimester). Threats of infanticide are a canard , a negotiating point to pull back from.

Also, it gets them lots of live babies for their rituals, research, transplantable organs and future slaves. Official story: late–term aborted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon wrote, “Also, it gets them lots of live babies for their rituals, research, transplantable organs and future slaves. Official story: late–term aborted.”

It’s a bit frightening what we “The Enlightened” mistakenly understood throughout the last few centuries, to be perfectly moral and legitimate. Things that are now repugnant were once touted via newspapers and sermon’s, and were even considered common sense. I won’t specify anything but just think of what went in the novels of Charles Dickens. And consider dystopian science fiction that predicts a horrible future. So, we used to be bad . . . and we will or may be bad in the future . . . but right now we are the most moral humans who ever existed. But, in a common sense way, are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Peter said:

Jon wrote, “Also, it gets them lots of live babies for their rituals, research, transplantable organs and future slaves. Official story: late–term aborted.”

 

It’s a bit frightening what we “The Enlightened” mistakenly understood throughout the last few centuries, to be perfectly moral and legitimate. Things that are now repugnant were once touted via newspapers and sermon’s, and were even considered common sense. I won’t specify anything but just think of what went in the novels of Charles Dickens. And consider dystopian science fiction that predicts a horrible future. So, we used to be bad . . . and we will or may be bad in the future . . . but right now we are the most moral humans who ever existed. But, in a common sense way, are we?

Child sex slaves are obtainable as we speak at prices everyone who posts here can afford, in Libya, for example. Hillary brags about her coup there. The slavetrade started upon her successful coup there. Note: Not rent, buy.

Share this post


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

Child sex slaves are obtainable as we speak at prices everyone who posts here can afford, in Libya, for example. Hillary brags about her coup there. The slavetrade started upon her successful coup there. Note: Not rent, buy.

I have run afoul of you and Michael before about this but if it can be proven and prosecuted then you have a case. Part of me wants to believe that about Hillary, because there is something about her I distrust, but don't you think "Bill" would have the stronger "urge?" He was the one who molested every woman he came into contact with. Hillary is the one who tried to stifle the investigations, belittle the victims, and may have even killed people who could harm her in any way. I don't think she would have a sexual desire for what you suggest, so would the money be worth the risk, especially when you say ruining a kid's life is cheap?  Conspiracy theories should be listened to but with no proof, they eventually get put into the X Files, and the accuser gets a "kook" label. Not you of course.

On a lighter but still bizaaro note, some militant vegetarians now think meat eaters will be viewed as barbarians and killers in the years to come. Every once in a while I feel a twinge as I eat a steak or chew on a chicken breast from Popeyes. But the feeling always fades. A vegetarian friend of one of my kids knew of a site dedicated to turning you into a vegetarian, and it started out by really grossing you out. I stopped watching it after a minute. Oddly enough I had home made lentil soup today . . . . and that's a veggie . . .  but it had small chunks of beef in it too. It was delicious.

I remember that famous autistic lady who was a slaughter house advisor. She would go to the trucks the beef cows were transported in, then to the chutes  the cows had to walk from the trucks into the slaughterhouse. She tried to make it a less scary, more efficient way to be led to their deaths. At one point she laid down in a chute to try to imagine what the dumb cows were feeling. Gross, "60 Minutes."

I'll take a double quarter pounder with no onion and no added salt, please. And a large fry with extra salt.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the beef! Now in this story it sounds like they have evidence and proof.

June 7th, 2019. PALM SPRINGS, Calif. — A placard bearing Naasón Joaquín García's name outside La Luz del Mundo church in Palm Springs greets congregants who stream in and out of the church for morning prayer and evening services each day.

García, the self-proclaimed apostle and leader of the Mexico-based church that counts 1 million followers, was arrested Tuesday in Los Angeles and charged with 26 felony counts, including child rape, trafficking and child pornography. California authorities also arrested two others affiliated with the church, and a third is at large. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 2:07 PM, Peter said:

I thought a language built on a mythical cultural image was stupid. I haven't re-watched it but I think Picard eventually gets through to those morons. I doubt the alien characters, as portrayed, would have advanced into  . . . an iron age?

Okay, to each his own. I thought it was a really cool episode, one of my favorites. I think you're being too literal. But, whatever. Sometimes one can't suspend his disbelief, and that can destroy the entire effect. It does interest me, however, in that it makes me wonder how the episode might be rewritten so that you could enjoy it as I much as I do.

 

4498825_0.jpg
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stardate: 45047.2 Picard must find a way to communicate with the Tamarians who, he learns, speak entirely in metaphors from mythology. In an effort to bring them closer, the Tamarian Captain beams himself and Picard onto a planet inhabited by a dangerous beast.

Ut has been a long tume sunce u have seen ut. The bizaaro aboriginals written language didn’t have the letter “I,” but I figured it out! Me Tarzan. You Jonathan. She Jane. She like me better. Even a caveman . . . could read my expressions and angry gestures after he cut me off in traffic.

My dislike and “laughs of derision rating” for the show was because I thought the plausibility level for such irrationality was very low. I give it one rotten tomato, though after the first viewing I did warm up to it a bit. Anything with Jean Luc Picard is interesting. And any civilization that has arisen and interacted with other cultures has more than an inkling of how to communicate. If your language is based on a mythical person or event, and the other culture has not heard of that factor, then any thinking, sentient being would go back to the logical pointing and speaking method as seen in the original Tarzan book and movies. They had to raise kids and those kids had no innate knowledge of the mythical being! There is no way in hell they would expect you to know about Puff the Magic Dragon, the basis for their language, since the alien is speaking a different language. Duh! was my original response, but not to you Jonathan, just to the shows intelligence level and implausibility.

How to improve the show? The premise for the plot needs to change. The first fictional accounts for communicating with aliens or even Robinson Crusoe and Friday are fine examples, and the movie "Contact" comes to mind. Peter

I edited the following. 10 Ways Of How To Communicate With Aliens by Kim Jones. Whether life exists in some super intelligent form in the vast universe or not is a question that everyone loves to debate about. While there are many so called eye witnesses who claim to have seen or being abducted by aliens, no one has ever come up with some concrete mode to communicate with the extraterrestrial visitors, should the need to communicate with them ever arise. The ways to communicate with aliens can be broadly classified under mathematical languages, pictorial messages, algorithmic messages, and multi modal messages. Here is a quick introduction of these various ways to communicate with aliens.

Mathematical language. Pictorial messages. Algorithmic messages. Multi-modal messages.

(7) Morse code is being used by space scientists and alien hunters to communicate with the extraterrestrials. Morse code is the elementary form of interstellar language where letters are represented by combinations of short or long audio or light signals.

(8) Russian scientists had sent interstellar radio transmissions under the header of Teen Age Messages or TAM in 2001. The message that comprised of three sections was sent out to six stars that looked like and has physical properties similar to the sun. The 1st section of the TAM consisted of coherent-sounding radio signal with slow Doppler wavelength. The 2nd section consisted of analog information that represented musical melodies that were performed on a Theremin. The last section was a binary digital code which carried information about the planet.

(9) Apart from the Teen Age Messages, in 2003 another set of multimodal messages were transmitted into the space. The message which was known as Cosmic Call-2 was comprised of images, texts, videos, music, a copy of the 1974 Arecibo message, the Braastad message and Dutil/Dumas message.

Telepathic communication (10) The mostly heard mode of communication to interact with the alien beings, however, is by means of telepathy. As per the firsthand accounts of the alleged alien abductees, the extraterrestrials never conversed by any language, but they communicated through the mind, by using the power of telepathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more? Here is an old letter of mine to a primitive species called Paleo Roger Bissell who lived on the mythical isle of Atlantis. Sheesh. I obviously don’t know what I am talking about. Peter

From: "Peter Taylor" Subject: ATL: Re: The Falsifiability of Objectivism Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:23:33 +0000

PaleoObjectivist, spear in one hand and animal hair brush in the other, painted on his cave walls :O) “On the other hand, even if you find cases where EGO is not valid (i.e., not good for man), this does ~not~ disconfirm the validity of CAP as well. (Denial of the antecedent does ~not~ logically imply denial of the consequent.) Deprived of EGO as a logical basis for CAP, it is thus not proved valid; but this in itself does not prove CAP ~invalid~. This is one chief reason why those who are so convinced from the nature and history of CAP that ~whatever~ the ultimate rationale found to validate it, it nonetheless is ~good~ and can be validated. This is also why there are so many adherents to CAP who do ~not~ share the EGO basis for it.” end quote

I see the inadvisability of proving higher level concepts with other higher level concepts, Roger, though that may be inevitable in a hierarchical system like Objectivism. We can’t always reduce everything to the three axioms due to lack of time. So, we supposedly prove and connect every lower level concept to our own satisfaction before we open our mouths about a concept we have never seriously thought of before. If we are not on the same page, so to speak, then communications are difficult.

It is counter productive to always need to define one’s terms before using them, as has happened with Bill Dwyer and Dennis May. For Atlantis to be fun and informative we all need to agree upon, or at least understand, the basics. And it is not Kosher to suddenly switch definitions or contexts in debates. I still think Soft Determinism is an imprecise way of looking at human behavior.

Objectivism will not collapse as a logically consistent entity if a higher level attachment is proven wrong. As a fictional example in the StarTrek series, Capitalism is considered anachronistic. The mercantile, alien Ferengi offer a corrupted “Prudent Predator” type of Capitalism, but generally all basic goods are plentiful on advanced planetary systems.

Matter converters and the energy to operate them are extremely cheap in this fictional future. In “star date time” food is not scarce. Land is not scarce. People group together to accomplish projects such as space exploration and mutual defense.

Yet, many of StarTrek’s ideals are Objectivist ideals and I see no contradiction because Capitalism is considered passé. Captain James P. Kirk and Captain Jean Luc Picard always barter for scarce goods when they are far from home, maintaining the glorious morality of Capitalism and free trade.

If we find contradictions between previously compatible ideas then we rethink the ideas. That is contextualism at its finest. One of the finest trading goods in the StarTrek future is information: Science and Technology. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Some old thoughts about Star Trek, TNG, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, etc and the whole Star Trek Universe. Edited for brevity. Using those > marks to indicate a quote is confusing. Peter

From: "Michael J. Hurd" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Star Trek Voyager Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:56:50 EST. I entirely agree with you re: Voyager and Seven of Nine. I know some people who won't, on principle, watch the newer Star Trek series (having enjoyed the older one), and your comments show how they are missing out on something quite valuable.

[The following Star Trek introduction is from his Living Resources website. Star Trek offers a rare glimpse into a world of heroes, where the reasoning individual mind solves problems successfully and confidently. Both the old and new series are, on the whole, inspiring as well as entertaining. Although a fantasy concept, Star Trek challenges us to project ourselves into a future where individuals consistently and heroically utilize reason, instead of reliance on emotions, whims, or superstition, to solve their dilemmas.

Star Trek is no sterile glorification of technology without reference to mind. The rational mind -- that is, the individual human soul or spirit -- is the essence of what drives this show and its characters. Its themes, such as individualism vs. collectivism (in the case of the evil Borg), are both relevant and timeless. Its heroes are individuals of both intellect and action. Star Trek is as much -- or more -- a work of philosophy and psychology as a work of science fiction. If the central purpose of art and entertainment is to project life as it might be and ought to be, as the philosopher Aristotle argued, then Star Trek fulfills its mission quite well.

Psychologically, the shows are magnificently refueling. They give you a refreshing, clean sense that the human mind is efficacious and can solve problems. You will walk away from most of the movies or episodes with a feeling that competence and thought, if diligently applied, can and will conquer adversity. You will experience the sensation, "If this is where mankind can go, then this is where I can go." Sincerely yours, Michael J. Hurd Living Resources Center

From: "Morganis Chamlo" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Star Trek and 'mainstream' art

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:22:01 -0000 >From: Steve Reed <SteveReed Subject: ATL: Re: Star Trek and 'mainstream' art Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:48:06 –0600 Morganis wrote (and I'm glad I can read him, these days): (why, perchance, would that be?) My real prob with _Voyager_ is the way they decided to handle the  idea of the 'holoDoc'. With his random ability to 'materialize' willy-nilly I started seeing a series that willingly includes pure fantasy and mixing it with Speculative Fiction; I saw, thereby, a series that wants to be called 'Science Fiction', while presenting nothing but 'Fairy Tales.' "Star Trek," especially the three latter-day series, tries to make even its pseudoscience at least superficially plausible.

Unless one really stresses 'superficially', I disagree about the last series, _Voyager_. With this series, ST started taking it's own *TechnoBabble* vocabulary-set from the earlier 2 series (which had its place, there and then) seriously, and using it as a Foundation for pseudo-explanations of any pure imaginings it felt would add novelty to the latest story. The writers clearly lost the idea of coherence-in-limitations of the ideas brought up in ST-TNG. There no longer were any limits to be concerned with, ergo, 'anything goes.' This is fairy tales, not science fiction. (To be sure, ST-TOS, for it's time, tried to do the same as ST-TNG, mostly through the arguments from Spock)

Andre Bormanis wrote a fascinating paperback, about his role as Science Advisor, called "ST:Science Logs." He points out that even fictional future science can have roots in genuine current science, with a little attention to detail.

I'm sure it 'can;' indeed, for it to be Science Fiction, I would expect that it actually 'must.' Else, its not *Science* Fiction, but something else.

What you see with "Voyager" and its holographic doctor-program is based on a major departure from even extrapolated science,

Such 'departures' are where I depart from associating such to 'science', deductions, extrapolations, or even speculations. Such departures should be properly called Imaginative Fantasy, which, as I implied, I thence have a prob with re this ST series. This is not to say that I do not appreciate fantasy tales. Two of my top 20 movies are _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_ and _The Exorcist_; however, I really prefer that a spade be not called a club, whatever their...superficial...similarities.

one going back to the original "Trek": the transporter. With how this device's  manipulation of matter is integral to stories of all "Trek" variations, I'd almost  have to say that it rises to the level of a storytelling axiom. -If- you posit such technology as the matter transporter, any number of later developments are in turn plausible, such as the holo(gram)decks and The Doctor.

Totally disagreed.

ST-TOS' 'transporter', upon thoughtful consideration, has to be considered a 'fantasy' idea, given it's rationale (superimposed on the one it borrowed from the original short-story-cum-movie _The Fly_, where an entity was decomposed in one containment-area to atoms that were then sent to a 'collector' containment-area and re-composed). ST's *beaming* made it clear that it's SF 'rationale' didn't necessitate sending ALL 'original' atoms, but merely those not available at the receiving end, albeit, the REAL thing to be concerned with was with the 'life-patterns' (or some such). However, a pattern sent, is a *copy*, which thereby should not necessitate the destruction of the original. Here is where ST went a bit into fantasy: 'beaming' was really nothing more than 'remote Cloning'. Bones was right to distrust the whole idea. Such just may occur in the (FAR) future; but, if so, it would not be what it is presented as appearing. The 'Away Team' never had to disappear from the transporter room, for the 'patterns' to be applied to materials elsewhere (assuming that a living Dynamic-*pattern* could be handled in such a way, to begin with, which a quite 'Speculative' *if*, to begin with).

And, re an AI 'materializing', a la their holo-doc: well, the writers are just assuming too much Sci-Fi (in the condescending tone Harlan Ellison regards the term) acceptance in their audience to make anything 'plausible' to this erstwhile fan. At this point, all I can think of is "How less 'plausible' is _Mary Poppins_?" Really. It's storytelling rationalism, but quite benign. I don't see it as quite being fair to say that it becomes a "fairy tale." That's a closer description of Lucas's "Star Wars" universe, say.

In your terms, 'superficially', that's true; but Lucas has broader, and deeper, *myths* to deal with, than weekly TV-series writers have. Interesting thing there is, the TV writers have the power of 'many heads', thereby being capable of coming up with ideas better than only 1...yet, Lucas' saga is looked forward to more than ST's writer-committee's next movie, no? I suspect such has something to do with that 'vision thing' that some get, and, for sure, no committee does.

And, by the way, I see nothing wrong with that, and a great deal of virtue in it, especially in its emphasis on conscious heroism. (Well, until the latest installment, anyway.) That the on-board resident 'aliens' appeared, in thought, word, emotion, values, and actions (never mind, physical-appearance) more human than alien also gave me a prob...at this point, with the ST-universe as-a-whole. 'Twas ever thus. John Carter of Mars brought his tender affection to Dejah Thoris, and reflected Burroughs' Victorian and Edwardian sensibilities; Tarzan of the Apes learned four languages and was a "hidden" English noble all along. But look at Burroughs' audience. It had far different expectations from its fiction than we do. "Trek" may be set in the 23rd/24th Centuries, but we're in the 21st,  and the plot and character crises have to be made in terms of what we understand and can decipher, or we won't watch it.

Agreed. My point remains: at this point in time, "Alien-ness" can be appreciated by mainstream in Much more than ST's facial bone-structure differences. _Alien_ and _Aliens_ came close; for a TV show, _Babylon 5_ had it's moments, as did _Space: Above and Beyond_.

>Even with this, the latter three series had to become more knowing of science, especially in the sophistication of computers and generated graphics. Back in the Kirkian days, even LCD clock readouts didn't exist. So some such updating goes on all the time.

Granted. I think ST-TNG and DS-9 did a near-superb job of attempting to 'stay on top of things' in that regard. (short of lacking any indication that, apart from the Holo-Deck, holography was used anywhere else...other than maybe Rikers qtrs, where he had a nice little holo of 2 toga'd ladies playing harps)

> > [...] I think much can be gleaned from our (re?)views on contemporary art-forms, especially, (though not ONLY) cinematics, such as TV,  movies. No one seems interested in discussing such. Too 'trivial' appearing,  maybe? Well, some of it in regard to movies (and occasionally TV) goes on through the MOV list at WeTheLiving, but it has very little traffic. And I know I've done much more of it on specialized lists. A few of my favorite tales from classic comics, for example, have active discussion on several Yahoo! Groups.

Hmmmm...ok; guess I'm just out of touch re the relevant places.

> Nothing stops us here, though. I may update and post my 50 Favorite Films list, with my own Objectivist descriptive glosses, once again. Art is a window of the soul. In one sense, it's never trivial. Not  even "pop" culture, sometimes more revealing of societal truths (inadvertently) than "high art."

Camille Paglia convinced me of that. True, true.

> For instance, any thoughts on Anthony Hopkins playing the character of the original "Zorro"? Any on the movie itself?

The Mask of Zorro," I believe. Wonderful, smooth updating of the highly Romantic tales, with good use of modern acting sensibilities. Hopkins, as the elder Zorro, teaches his successor with panache and style. Catherine Zeta-Jones is luminous. * SteveReed@earthling.net *

"The Church of the SuperGenius continues to worship Wile E. Coyote. We are currently denying the existence of a secret gnostic inner group, known as the Church of Wile E. Coyote, Scientist, whose esoteric doctrine is that this entire world was built by ACME." >-- Arthur D. Hlavaty

From: "Morganis Chamlo" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Star Trek....and...'mainstream' Art.

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:05:52 -0000 >From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Star Trek....and...'mainstream' Art.Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:37:05 -0000

If  I may, one last caveat... John-Morganis wrote about the Holo-Doctor on Star Trek Voyager, “My real prob with _Voyager_ is the way they decided to handle the idea of the 'holoDoc'. With his random ability to 'materialize' willy-nilly I started seeing a series that willingly includes pure fantasy and mixing it with Speculative Fiction; I saw, thereby, a series that wants to be called 'Science Fiction', while presenting nothing but 'Fairy Tales.'” End quote

Actually, it's that *he* was supposed to have been (when the series started) a quite *Original* TYPE of character; he ended up, within 4 episodes, as 'watered-down' a *non-human* character as most other 'aliens.' I see him as representative of where the caliber of writing went for the series, not to mention the series-mythos. Anyone wonder why there's no 'follow-up' series to _Voyager_? I'd say that it's because there's no writers up to the caliber of even DS-9.

The writers of _Voyager_ thought that they were expected to write merely a 'soap-opera-in-space' with a 'crisis-situation' starting by the end of the 1st 1/2 hour. The use, and obvious need, of the likes of "7-of-9" shows how introverted the show became for all the ostensible 'probs-from-elsewhere' the crew had to deal with; without 7-of-9's duality-prob of "human-or-borg?" (not to be confused with some of the crew's duo-prob re 7-of-9), _Voyager_ wouldn't have made it through the 2nd season. It's writers knew nothing about "going where no one has gone before." It's clear that That is the last place they wanted to check out. They didn't; _Voyager_ thereby suffered; the ST mythos thereby lost.

That character is rather far-fetched unless you consider him as one of Dennis May’s Neural Network Memes, in action :O) HAL is the Only thing I consider even close to any exemplification of that. It is as unbelievable as beaming up, unless you are 'determined' by Captain  Kirk to “Suspend Disbelief, Scotty!”

>Two intriguing ideas from the various series: 1) Nearly all sentient humanoid races on the show are related genetically due to the seeding of the Milky Way Galaxy by some  original ancestral race of benevolent beings.

Acceptable in a specific story's plot; not acceptable as the basis of a continuing series...it's then merely an obviously transparent financially-motivated 'excuse' to not have bona-fide ALIENS involved in a 'diverse' alien-filled universe. Understandable, if the finance is too high; but, hey, if one's going to be obvious about one's unacceptable believability, then don't waste everyone's time about trying to appear 'believable!'

>2) The entire show always takes place in one Galaxy - ours. The distance to the Delta Quadrant of the Milky Way still takes 70 years of relative travel time. The Universe is a big place and it is getting bigger, all the time.

I wasn't aware of that. That merely confirms my conclusions: the writers that all produces 'settled' on for _Voyager_ had Limited imagination, and knew only how to ride on the concepts established by others earlier, in the other series. I'm not saying that they were bad writers; I'm only saying that they were bad at SF, or, at least, ST.

From: Monart Pon Reply-To: Starship_Forum Subject: Dr. Michael Hurd and Star Trek Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:29:58 -0700

Michael Hurd is a successful psychologist, author, radio personality, and Star Trek fan. Last year when I first visited his website at <http://www.drhurd.com/>, not only was I impressed by his work, but also by his Star Trek page <http://www.drhurd.com/booklist/star-trek.html> where he writes: "Star Trek offers a rare glimpse into a world of heroes, where the reasoning individual mind solves problems successfully and confidently. Both the old and new series are, on the whole, inspiring as well as entertaining. Although a fantasy concept, Star Trek challenges us to project ourselves into a future where individuals consistently and heroically utilize reason, instead of reliance on emotions, whims, or superstition, to solve their dilemmas.

"Star Trek is no sterile glorification of technology without reference to mind. The rational mind -- that is, the individual human soul or spirit -- is the essence of what drives this show and its characters. Its themes, such as individualism vs. collectivism (in the case of the evil Borg), are both relevant and timeless. Its heroes are individuals of both intellect and action. Star Trek is as much – or more -- a work of philosophy and psychology as a work of science fiction. If the central purpose of art and entertainment is to project life as it might be and ought to be, as the philosopher Aristotle argued, then Star Trek fulfills its mission quite well.

"Psychologically, the shows are magnificently refueling. They give you a refreshing, clean sense that the human mind is efficacious and can solve problems. You will walk away from most of the movies or episodes with a feeling that competence and thought, if diligently applied, can and will conquer adversity. You will experience the sensation, 'If this is where mankind can go, then this is where I can go.'"

When I invited Michael to check out the early version of the Starship Aurora website, he responded: "I like both the style and content of your website and encourage you to continue building it. I like the integration of rational philosophy, psychological heroism, and the Star Trek vision."

Visit Dr. Hurd's website and benefit from the resources available there. Monart

From: "Dennis May" Reply-To: Starship_Forum Subject: [Starship_Forum] Star Trek Enterprise Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:23:03 -0600 I just watched the 2 hr. pilot for Enterprise last night [thanks Monart]. I saw some good things and some bad things.

Good Things: A.  Mention of a Temporal Cold War.  There has always been the obvious fact in Star Trek that many weapons would naturally lead to a perpetual Cold War.

B.  Restoration of an exploratory spirit versus a United Nations peacekeeper/statist bureaucrats approach some Star Trek series had become.

Bad Things: A.  The story lines of Star Trek have never been consistent and again there are several problems.

B.  The shameless attempt to promote multi-culturalism as a valid concept.

C.  The attempt to place humans as 3rd world victims of the 1st world Vulcans who have kept them down. Obvious desire for being handed the answers without working for them.

D.  Placing Vulcans in situations where it appears logic is a failed concept.  Wouldn't logical Vulcans first train humans and let them travel with them supervised to gain experience, rather than let them have an all or nothing exposure to the larger alien universe out there?  In previous Star Trek writings Vulcans and Humans were on an approximately equal technological footing in many areas, with Vulcans superior in some, Humans superior in others.  If I remember they had some minor alien encounters and were ahead in warp drive but behind in computers. They were ahead in genetics but very poor in exploratory skills.  The combined Vulcan/Human effort was useful for both, not simply the Vulcans acting as benevolent benefactor to backwards know-nothing humans. More episodes may change this initial impression. Dennis May

From: "Robyn Herrington" Reply-To: Starship_Forum To: Starship_Forum Re: Star Trek Enterprise Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 19:34:29 -0000

{Robyn, Mary Jane has told me, is an expert on the Star Trek series, and has written scripts based on it. -Moderator}

[Responding to Dennis May (11/05)]

Hi Dennis -- Everyone.  Thought I'd add in my 2 cents worth...

> Good Things: A.  Mention of a Temporal Cold War.  There has always been the obvious fact in Star Trek that many weapons would naturally lead to a perpetual Cold War.

Agreed -- a good point.

>B.  Restoration of an exploratory spirit versus a United Nations peacekeeper/statist bureaucrats approach some Star Trek series had become.

Also agreed.  Unfortunately, subsequent episodes have shown that the 'exploratory spirit' also often means 'reckless and hasty.' I find it a bit disturbing that I, in the year 2001, keep thinking what twits these explorers be for some of the brainless things they do.

> Bad Things: A.  The story lines of Star Trek have never been consistent and again there are several problems.

And this will never change.  You would think, with the amount of $$ that Paramount has, someone would care about continuity, but it appears that what's most important is the fact that this is a TV show, done only for the sake of producing a TV show.  Not a *bad* one, by any means. Also, there are so many cooks -- something with continuity can only be achieved, I think, with a show like Babylon 5, where JMS wrote, directed and produced a very high percentage of the shows.  His work was never damned by committee. Enterprise -- or any 'Trek' franchise -- isn't so lucky.

>B.  The shameless attempt to promote multi-culturalism as a valid concept.

That's political correctness raising its ugly head, isn't it?  That's affirmative action showing up, isn't it?  Also - less a comment of the show, definitely a comment on those who make it.

>C.  The attempt to place humans as 3rd world victims of the 1st world Vulcans who have kept them down.

That was very heavy handed, but I believe that was an attempt for swift character building.  The only people who've really expressed that kind of feeling are Archer and Trip.

>Obvious desire for being handed the answers without working for them.

Yeah -- well, that's a pretty human trait, isn't it? <grin>

>D.  Placing Vulcans in situations where it appears logic is a failed concept.  Wouldn't logical Vulcans first train humans and let them travel with them.

... assuming humans could be 'trained'...

>supervised to gain experience, rather than let them have an all or nothing exposure to the larger alien universe out there?  In previous Star Trek writings

I wonder if it's a function of humanity -- that the very things that make humans show great initiative, take chances, lay down their lives for others, act heroic -- the things that make them *boldly* go -- wouldn't be present in crews of people willing to be 'trained' and 'supervised.'  You'd get drones more than explorers.  What there needs to be is a balance.  But balance doesn't make for good TV.

>Vulcans and Humans were on an approximately equal technological footing in many areas, with Vulcans superior in some, Humans superior in others.  If

Previous Trek offerings are a couple of hundred years after this, minimum.  One can only guess that we improve by leaps and bounds by the time of Kirk and Spock.

 > More episodes may change this initial impression.

Alas, I suspect not.  By the third episode, an unfortunate 'style' had already developed:

Human: Oh Look, Something New!  Let's go explore...

Vulcan: There are protocols to be followed...

Human: Screw the protocols!  Let's go!

Vulcan: You're going to get in trouble...

Humans:.... uh-oh.  We're in trouble.

Vulcan: I would say 'I told you so,' but it isn't logical for me to do so.

Human: Shucks.  We'll just have to watch it a bit more from now on... but Oh, Look!  Something New!...

Having said that, I do think 'Enterprise' has the makings of a solid show.  The fourth episode (fifth?) was a very good piece of work.  There was excellent pacing and character development -- heck, I think there's already been more character development in a few shows than in the first couple of seasons of Voyager.  There's tension -- something sorely lacking in Voyager -- and the tension is what makes conflict – and conflict is what always makes for a more interesting show. FWIW. 😉 Robyn

From: "Monart Pon" Reply-To: Starship_Forum To: Starship_Forum  [Star Trek] Seven of Nine Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:52:17 -0000

P.T. Galt wrote (12/01): ... In the interests of balance, a few of the *good* things about Star Trek (IMO), in no particular order (except the last one): - Spock  - Q - The Borg (such a great example of the essence of collectivism!) - Patrick Stewart as Capt. Picard  - Whenever Capt. Janeway stares down some evil alien's ship and says "Fire!" - Data - The Doctor – Scotty - Strong female characters like Capt. Janeway and Seven of Nine  - Seven of Nine for being both smart and beautiful >grin< > - The attempt to address serious issues in a thought-provoking atter > - And most important, a concretization of humans as a success in Universe seeking "to boldly go where no one has gone before" which has done so much to keep the Dream of reaching the stars alive.

There are many more good points to add to PT's list of Star Trek qualities, and he has included many of those I consider important, too, especially the last point, the ideas of which I've written about elsewhere. Here, I'd like to add to PT's point about Seven of Nine.

Seven is unique in her unrelenting quest for perfection, partly as a legacy of her Borg life and partly from her commitment to discovering and achieving her individuality. Seven is serious, consistent, competent, and confident. She questions anything she doesn't understand. She is loyal to her own judgments and to her word, unless she can be convinced logically to change otherwise. Sometimes when she needs to, she tries hard to accommodate the "illogical" behavior of some her crewmates. In short, Seven exemplifies many of the virtues of rationality: honesty, independence, integrity, justice, courage, productiveness, and pride.

Jeri Ryan, the actress playing the role of Seven, contributes a major portion of the charisma to the character. Obviously, Jeri has to maintain a non-self-consciousness to the skin-suits she wears that accentuate her statuesque form, acting as if it's perfectly natural for her to dress so. Depicting the sober, non-emotional straight-face of the ex-Borg that Seven is, Jeri is able to express volumes of meaning with an arch of an eyebrow, a glare of an eye, a twitch of a lip, or a tilt of the head. As with all the other memorable characters of the Star Trek world, it's hard to imagine anyone else playing them than those who did. Jeri Ryan / Seven of Nine is no exception.

The only part that is tragic about Seven is that, although she is comfortable with her solitude, she has no peer (except maybe Tuvok), and she has no true romantic match (although attempts were made). It's as if the little orphan girl that she was, before her assimilation by the Borg, had died and has to be resurrected and encouraged to grow into the woman that she still sought to find. This alienation she has from her past makes her appear, to the regular humans, to be cold, conceited, insensitive, and "no fun". But they do respect her strengths and know she is not "to be messed with". The times when Seven has to "let her hair down", literally and figuratively, she reveals a romantic posture that dramatizes even more her already special appeal. Monart

From: "monartpon" To: Starship_Forum Subject: [Star Trek] "Nemesis" Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:44:04 -0000 "Paramount Pictures Announces 'Star Trek: Nemesis' Begins Principal Photography" SOURCE  Paramount Pictures 12/11/2001

CONTACT:  Susan Ciccone, Vice President, National Publicity, Paramount Pictures, +1-323-956-5588, susan--ciccone@paramount.com/

HOLLYWOOD, Calif., Dec. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- "Star Trek: Nemesis" has begun principal photography, filming primarily on soundstages and locations in Southern California.  The fourth motion picture featuring the cast of the Emmy-winning television series "Star Trek: The Next Generation" created by Gene Roddenberry, "Star Trek: Nemesis" is produced by Rick Berman and directed by Stuart Baird.  The screenplay is written by Oscar(R)-nominated John Logan ("Gladiator" and the 2002 release "The Time Machine") from a story by Logan & Berman & Brent Spiner.  Marty Hornstein serves as executive producer and unit production manager, Peter Lauritson serves as co-producer and Jeffery L. Kimball ("Mission: Impossible II") is director of photography.  Paramount Pictures is a part of the entertainment operations of Viacom Inc.

Reprising their starring roles as the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise are Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (Commander William T. Riker), Brent Spiner (android Lieutenant Commander Data), LeVar Burton (Lieutenant Commander Geordi LaForge), Michael Dorn (Lieutenant Worf), Gates McFadden (Commander Beverly Crusher, Chief Medical Officer), Marina Sirtis (Lieutenant Commander Deanna Troi, Counselor).

On their way to celebrate the wedding of First Officer Will Riker and Counselor Deanna Troi, Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the Enterprise crew are suddenly diverted for an unexpected diplomatic mission to the planet Romulus. Longtime enemies of the Federation, the Romulans have expressed their desire to initiate negotiations that will hopefully lead to a long-awaited unity in the galaxy.  But upon their arrival on Romulus, the Enterprise crew is faced with a threat that could lead to the destruction of the planet Earth, and Picard comes face to face with a man who may prove to be his most dangerous adversary yet ... and surprisingly personal nemesis.

Stuart Baird previously directed the political thriller "Executive Decision" starring Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal, as well as the follow-up to the Academy Award(R)-winning "The Fugitive," "U.S. Marshals" starring Tommy Lee Jones and Wesley Snipes.  Producer Rick Berman continues to guide the "Star Trek" universe after producing "Star Trek: Generations," "Star Trek: First Contact" and "Star Trek: Insurrection."  He was executive producer of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and the co-creator/executive producer of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Star Trek: Voyager."  Berman is also currently producing the "prequel" series "Enterprise," which he co-created as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JUST IN: A Federal Appeals Court has ruled today that President Trump can defund Planned Parenthood, will cut just shy of $60 million in taxpayer funding
12:58 PM · Jun 20, 2019

 

2398

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.387 📁
Nov 3 2018 14:09:12 (EST)
[D] Party Con:
When you can't raise money 'organically' through party (individual) donations (voter base) YOU STEAL IT from the American taxpayer and give it back to yourself in the form of campaign contributions.
[Example 1]
Planned Parenthood
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-204R📁
$1.5 billion provided in taxpayer funding over 3-year period.
[Case 1]
PP spent $30 million [disclosed - real estimates close to $65 million] in taxpayer subsidies to influence the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections.
[Conclusion]
Should it be legal for a taxpayer [D+R+I] funded organization to donate massive amounts of money to the D party in an effort to sway an election?
D_insider_term: T_WASH
Re_read drops re: Soros & taxpayer funding
YOUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Q

https://qanon.pub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Get ready for “Oh, gosh, were some of them, unknown to us, born LIVE? We will not rest until we have corrected this apparent hiccup in our clinic procedures. A woman’s right to 

SAN FRANCISCO, September 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The CEO of StemExpress admitted in court Thursday that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.

She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be torn away.”

“That is an especially gruesome admission, but it begs the question: how did they get these fully intact human children?” says Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden at the hearing.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stemexpress-ceo-admits-selling-beating-baby-hearts-intact-baby-heads-in-daleiden-hearing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 2:10 PM, tmj said:

Pound for pound unborn baby parts are worth more. It's psych-ops to normalize later abortions( post 1st trimester). Threats of infanticide are a canard , a negotiating point to pull back from.

Worth more, yes. And imagine the negotitiating position when you have the beating ones:

”Come on, Sultan those other guys are hawking grey little fucking chicken nuggets. Look how plump and pink this is! It’s fucking beating and you are a billionaire, so let us end this nonsense and get back to golf — one thousand units in 90 days and you pay the amount I said, ok? Ok.”

Share this post


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

 

Get ready for “Oh, gosh, were some of them, unknown to us, born LIVE? We will not rest until we have corrected this apparent hiccup in our clinic procedures. A woman’s right to 

SAN FRANCISCO, September 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The CEO of StemExpress admitted in court Thursday that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.

She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be torn away.”

“That is an especially gruesome admission, but it begs the question: how did they get these fully intact human children?” says Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden at the hearing.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stemexpress-ceo-admits-selling-beating-baby-hearts-intact-baby-heads-in-daleiden-hearing

Jon,

This is beyond horrible.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

This is beyond horrible.

Michael

 

And here is how these evil little fucks talk amongst themselves over a few cocktails. He points out he can pay more if she can modify procedures so that more parts are saved from destruction. She is amenable and she sets his expectations regarding the dimensions of modification coming to her “compensation”: She wants a Lambo. Ha! That’s high-stakes chill right there, so cool.

 

 

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...