Search the Community

The following is a pretty good interview with Trump on "Morning Joe," even though in the middle, Joe cut him off for a break out of frustration. That's why there are two videos. The media is playing up Joe cutting Trump off, but the second half is more important as to what is actually going to happen in the press over time. After the break: Also, as gravy, here are reactions to Trump's Muslim comment from people at the rally last night (also covered by "Morning Joe"): I see all the hot-button elements in this to bait a perfect media shit-storm, with all the due escape clauses. In other words, eventually the media will have to cave after doing a lot of blah blah blah soapbox crap like they did with all the other Trumpisms. And Trump's support will continue growing. Michael

When The Donald wins the 2016 Presidential election, if it is against Evita, I fully expect you to say, "OK, so now that "he" got elected, does that success translate to being a successful President? And on and on we go... Excellent point ! As for the chefs here checking recipes for crow , I am expecting something like " Trump only bowed out because blah blah blah " " Yeah , but he would have won if etc etc etc "

My link says that DT still has no chance . I know that he is brilliant , I do not care about numbers that seem like this is basketball . Down by 14 , down by 21 based on last nights debate , blah blah blah . This can , will , and always does change in a heartbeat based on stuff that we can not even think of . No chance does DT go up against Hillary for God sake , the only candidate that she would actually destroy . The Republican infrastructure knows this . Watch , and wait , and watch . I cannot wait till that day when MSK will probably be the only one here brave enough to state loud and clear how correct I was .

I think Rubio is the real leader now insofar as projecting the winner. I can't translate "blah, blah, blah" beyond that's your not caring for what I said. I didn't contradict your points. I merely pointed to points you did not make. --Brant old man gumpiness is old man value--for whomever

Brant - War, bad world, blah, blah, blah. Okay, but I'm not sure where you contradict my points. In any case, I like Rand Paul but don't think he'll win. The GOP will probably get a Rubio or Cruz, maybe Fiorina as VP. Trump would be bad in any case. If he doesn't win in the general election, we have Pres. Hillary. If he does win, his policies in many cases are wrong and the adverse consequences would be fast in coming. Looking for a path forward, I would hope a Republican president, other than Trump or Carson, would give priority to domestic issues where their policies are far better than the status quo. What would really constitute fundamental change in the long run is if a president made crippling the current crony system, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats, a priority. Fiorina was harping on this idea before she jumped into the race, so maybe she as VP could head up that effort. (Of historic interest: Under the generally awful Bush Sr., the Council on Competitiveness under VP Quayle actually did important work on deregulation and market liberalization. Too bad Sr. didn't make that a priority rather than raising taxes and slapping on new environmental regulations.) And, of course, a GOP president would do well to offer the optimistic vision of the world as it can be and should be that will to attract and inspire folks, especially young people, and counter the pessimism of the culture, paternalism of the Democrats, and generally old man grumpiness, "Get off my lawn you kids" kvetching of some libertarians and conservatives, some found--shockingly!--even on this very website!

I have serious doubts about those statistics on early older white male deaths causing rage against the machine. Everything I have seen online smells of "trade-up-the-chain" media blah blah blah. It's something for overworked journalists to write since it sounds controversial and they can blame the source on somebody else after all due CYA. (Me-too journalism.) Let's have some fun. I wonder what one would find if one compares the rates of older white male deaths against younger black male deaths or younger Latino male deaths in inner cities... I can think of a million ways to spin shit. Michael

lolllllz !!!! If only the election were today !!!!! My guess is that the day that DT pulls out , well this thread will be very very quiet . Oh ,there will be excuses . Yeah but , it was this , it was that , blah blah blah . 100 pages long about predictions and comments , but my guess will be less than one page of bantering after he leaves . Talk about a stock market bubble , a Silicon Valley bubble , the DT bubble will burst fast and furious . Spiraling very quickly .

Repubs actually got a guy who is under 100 , will get Latinos , young voters , probably women votes . And folks actually think that another old white guy who will for sure clean up in the northeast among old wealthy white voters is gonna win this nomination . Supreme court issue , and to boot in an election year where the Repubs will actually win - yet they gonna put in Trump ? I know , I know , I know . The polls . 13 months before the election and all the voters who don't vote in the primaries say they will vote for DT . Blah blah blah . Gonna start calling him Casper ( as in friendly ghost ) , cause DT is going to be disappearing quite quickly .

OMG , lol but he just agreed to support the eventual winner . He cut his deal already . The deal maker still knows he has no chance , he is a step closer to achieving what he set out to achieve . Damn , if only the US election was today and not in 14 months , then he would have a shot . Nov 4 2016 , methinks is the date . Until then everyone will make it seem like every bit of news favours their POV . The real issue is that the day that Trump makes his final deal ( with the eventual winner of the nomination ) , well then I am expecting perhaps a half of page more of blah blah blah and why he did not stay in . Not expecting to see much action that day

Mikee refresh your stale mind as to what an ad-hominem is, here I'll even Google it for you. Merriam-Webster: And back to you: Like I said blah, blah. Ad-hominem. Blah. It's fitting that your avatar is an open book. You clearly be mad. Too mad to even halfway form a proper argument. lol.

It is about a couple of hours after the debate. Frankly I didn't think Trump was at his finest. Not bad but not great either. I saw a lot of pundits do a lot of blah blah blah saying the same thing I felt, but many were really down on Trump. (Frank Luntz was one of the absolute worst--in full manipulation mode. His focus group was unnaturally inactive compared other focus groups he normally runs--kind of like a bunch of paid stooges this time around. The folks were mostly bland and/or silent except when called on to bash Trump. Then they got passionate. ) Then, feeling a bit down, I went upstairs to my computer to see Drudge. Woah... Lookee there. Drudge has a poll running. I voted. Then I took a screenshot. (Here's the link, but it probably won't work after tonight or maybe tomorrow owing to the name of the URL.) In fact, I voted twice to see if it was going to be a fair vote, so notice the words, "Thank you, we have already counted your vote" at the top of the screenshot. Even on an off day (at least I felt he was off), people are voting that Trump won the debate. Michael EDIT: Here's what the ballot looks like before voting:

Precisely. A... Post Script: I do not know why it has Brant's words under Peter's handle...not my intention Brant. -- that used to make me crazy when it happened to me. The solution is to switch into BB Code in your edit window. You can then just remove the wrong quoting mark ups as well as the text you don't care about. BB code is just a set of simple conventions for marking up text to insert or format images, bolding, URLs and other stuff like lists and spoilers and on and on. Here is the basic BB code for the incorrectly-headed quote from Brant: [quote name="Peter Taylor"]blah blah blah[/quote]The actual code also shows the unique posting number and the time-stamp of its publication. You have probably hit the BB Code button in the editing window if only by accident: it's the top left one. The BB Code conventions are always of this form, in matching couplets: opening and closing mark ups: [ yadda ] test test test [/ yadda ] Here's a couple of snaps while Out and In the BB Code window: -- the mistakes I make in longer post quotes are usually when the opening and closing markups do not match. When responding to an already deep quoted comment, the cut and pasting overwhelms the scripts and it just makes a best guess what you are trying to do. In this case, you would have stripped out the internal Peter Taylor quote pairs where you wanted only Brant's words. It is hard to cut out sections of multiply-quoted text and keep the attributions right in the WYSIWYG text editing window. And behind it all, every scrap of BB Code is translated into HTML. If you really want to go crazy, check that checkmark and see hell come to life on your screen.

As I said in my essay, it basically is composed of two things: 1. A sense of proud alienation from "conventional" society, and a high respect for individuality and thinking independently. 2. An appreciation for a set of historically and stylistically interrelated music genres, as well as the visual appearances associated with those genres. The music genres in question are Goth Rock/Post Punk, Industrial-Electronic, Synth Pop/Darkwave, and also (to some degree) Industrial Rock and certain kinds of Metal (but generally NOT Black Metal/Death Metal). First, there are multiple different goth styles (and in actual fact, they usually do not look like zombies or corpses). There's the "romantic" style (Victorian-esque formal clothing and the like), there's the futuristic/cyberpunk style (typically associated with the Industrial/Electro part of Goth), there's the more punk-rock-inspired look, but really there's a lot of flexibility. Oh, and the makeup isn't corpse-paint (i.e. white and black facepaint is not associated with the Goth scene, its primarily associated with the Black Metal/Death Metal scene). Typically it doesn't go much further than eyeliner, lipstick/lipgloss and perhaps some foundation to make one's complexion one or two shades fairer. As to why I like it? I think it can look very good (at least the kind/s of goth style I like... I prefer to avoid the punk look), I enjoy and share the goth scene's attitude about being proudly alienated from the mainstream, and I like the music. Okay, we need to separate out the different movies and news stories you're talking about. I'll start with the news stories first. The news in general loves sensationalism and stories about the latest thing "corrupting the youth" - comic books, video games, pen-and-paper RPGs etc all caused moral panics. The moral panic over goth, however, started specifically due (unfortunately) to Marilyn Manson (who's album "Antichrist Superstar" caused its share of outrage). Manson's music isn't goth music but it has some influence from goth, and to some degree it popularized a version of the goth look (typically a more messy, punk-like version) amongst his relatively young fanbase. At this time we had Tipper Gore and the whole moral panic over violent and offensive music going on in congress. Then Columbine happened and that moral panic absolutely exploded. The shooters, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, weren't exactly gothic but they were distantly affiliated with a semi-gothic clique on campus called "the trench-coat mafia" (black trenchcoats are legitimately part of goth fashion), and they were also fans of an Electro-Rock/Industrial-Rock band called KFMDM, who are popular in the goth scene (that said, if you take a listen to KFMDM's music, its actually not particularly dark and they have a surprising amount of rather pleasant and dancey songs). Of course, the press decided to blame Marilyn Manson (although the shooters didn't like his work). The religious right got involved; they defamed Manson and accused him of murdering puppies on stage and holding Satanic baptisms (Manson sued them for defamation and won the case). They jumped on the gravy train and began hyping up the whole "goths = your child is going to be worshipping satan" panic alongside panics over 'ungodly' music blah blah blah. Some Christian ministries even actively focused on trying to convert goths to Christianity! This filtered down into talk shows like Jenny Jones, where Manson fans and some goths (after Columbine, actual goths tried to distance themselves from Manson rather aggressively, mostly as a defensive tactic) got dragged on stage to be systematically humiliated by the audience and condemned by their parents before being forced to undergo a makeover into a "normal" child. The schools banned gothic attire in the aftermath of Columbine too, claiming it was somehow gang-affiliated. Now, onto the movies. I presume you're talking about Tim Burton films right? How can you describe them as "ghoulish"? The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride are both perfectly family-friendly movies and Corpse Bride in particular is a very sweet love story! Edward Scissorhands is hardly some twisted evil film either... and Edward's costuming is exaggerated owing to the fact that its a movie. The Crow (not a Burton film but still) is a goth classic yet gothic people actually don't wear that kind of facepaint (except perhaps if we're specifically dressing like The Crow on Halloween). First, how did you know they actually were goths? They could've been metalheads or Manson fans or punk rock fans (mohawks, for instance, are pretty common amongst punk rock fans). Second, "looking like Marilyn Manson" doesn't necessarily imply dressing in a filthy, punk-like style; his image during the Mechanical Animals era (his critical and commercial high point) was derived from Bowie-esque glam rock and during the Golden Age of Grotesque era and afterwards there was a lot of dapper formal wear and suits and pinstripes. Third, you openly admit you've only seen a "few" alleged goths so perhaps you should refrain from making judgments without sufficient background knowledge. But you know what? I'm going to point out something; you seem to think dressing conventionally is a norm which requires no explanation and can be taken for granted, yet dressing unconventionally is a deviation from the norm which requires explanation. I disagree, because dressing conventionally is just as much of a choice as dressing unconventionally. All of these conventions are man-made, not metaphysical, so why do you take the norm for granted rather than ask yourself why these norms exist in the first place and what justifies them? And what, pray tell, justifies rendering moral condemnation upon people simply for having unorthodox aesthetic preferences?

I will try to find what she taught at NBI but here is a thread that shows Ellen Moore's depth of thought. I noticed she does say she taught Peikoff''s lectures, but does not mention NBI so I may be wrong - she just took courses from NBI. Here is a portion of a thread. Peter From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: - Objectivist Metaphysics "metaphysical" and "axiomatic". Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:42:17 -0600 I am writing in response to Jason Alexander's posts, and for others who are interested in considering the philosophical issues about metaphysics in the system of Objectivism. Jason asked me to present my position that "reason is not metaphysical" without being "confrontational". I will do that. It will involve more than one post. I am appreciative of Jason's continued encouragement of my postings, and the interest and support he has given me. I'm most appreciative of the fact that he expressed interest in the topic, Is Reason Metaphysical? I've spent many years considering the Objectivist premises of volition, concept formation, and reason. I am working within the system that Rand's premises indicate, and identifying that it all comes together as she intended the philosophical integration to be understood. I'll begin with the meaning of Metaphysics in Objectivism. Many members may consider this introduction is well known and needlessly repetitive, but I also write for readers who are learning the premises, and for those who may have become interested in a deeper analysis of the philosophical structure. From a general historical base in philosophy, metaphysics is the study of the nature of being, usually referred to as "Being". In Objectivism, the term for "Being" is "Existence". Rand's concept means existence is every thing that exists in the past, the present, and in the future - this includes the whole range of all existents in the eternal universe ("eternal" means "out of time" - no beginning and ongoing without ending). Existence, Identity, Consciousness are the three primary metaphysical axioms of Objectivism. Every existent *is* its Identity. Rand said, "Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification". This means that every entity that exists *is* a particular identity, of a particular nature. Each thing must necessarily act according to its nature because it cannot contradict its nature. The nature of each thing's actions, attributes, and relations are governed by the law of identity and the law of causality. Consciousness possesses identity, and its nature is the ability for identification of existents. We require certain crucial distinctions about terminology and meaning. Existence, is the primary axiom and includes matter and consciousness. Concrete physical and material things exist. Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Consciousness exists in some living beings. Within the study of metaphysics, human consciousness is the faculty of being aware of reality by means of our perceptions of things. Another distinction is between the physical and the mental, i.e., between the body and the mind. The integration of body and mind pertains to interdependent and interactive functions. Both are the province of metaphysics because both pertain to the nature of a being's life. The term "metaphysical" adds a suffix ending to "metaphysics" so it becomes an adjective meaning that any thing identified as metaphysical pertains to its metaphysics, i.e., to the identity and nature of the things in existence. This is Metaphysics. It must account for different things that exist, and must deal with the nature of things like matter that is inanimate as well as with animate matter of living things like plants, animals, and human beings. Philosophy sets the epistemological terms for validation of knowledge. Science works to describe and explain the natures and actions of things in existence. This is why Ayn Rand discussed briefly the different kinds of beings and their distinct natures in her introduction, "The Objectivist Ethics". In essence, Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism. It sets the terms for differentiating between human individuals, and it explains why individual's actions, ideas, and values differ substantively regarding those who achieve rationality while others settle into various states of irrationality. Their minds gradually develop into patterns which become automatized. The main responsibility of metaphysics is to acknowledge and deal with the fact that philosophy itself belongs in the domain of human life. Other species of plants and animals do not discuss metaphysics or any other branch of philosophy, epistemology, ethics, politics, or esthetics. In fact, the things that philosophy must deal with is the nature of human life and human knowledge - what is it, and how knowledge is to be validated if life is to be viable and sustained. Metaphysics must include and deal with the nature of the human body and human consciousness - the facts of what we are. Philosophy deals with how we know what we know, and how we ought to act while living alone, or if we live among other humans. What we *are*, body and mind, is the province of metaphysics. Gaining and validating our knowledge are the issues pertaining to epistemology. How we ought to act individually in order to live is the domain of ethics, and politics is the application of ethics to the issues of living among other humans ("in a social context"). The main point of my repeating all this here is: there is no justification whatever for thinking that metaphysics deals with reality as a whole, but that human nature is not a true subject in metaphysics because we are only one kind of entity, human beings. Human life is an integration of both *physical, metaphysical, and mental* characteristics. The task of metaphysics is to provide the guiding principles pertaining to the human body, to human consciousness, to human volition, and to mental functions - all are included. Our body is physical, our volitional consciousness is metaphysical, and our mental functions operate according to the law of identity. ~~~~~~ Rand identified this *metaphysical* premise: "Man's particular distinction from all other living species is the fact that his consciousness is volitional." (she italicized the last word for emphasis) I have discussed the Objectivist view of the metaphysical nature of volitional consciousness many times, so here are the main details in brief: Only human beings possess the attribute of a volitional consciousness. Volition pertains to the operations of human consciousness, *not to its contents*.... Volition is the conscious ability of initiating and directing actions that can raise, lower, and shut down its level of awareness. Rand's metaphor "focus" refers *only* to raising awareness from a lower to a higher level. Rand made this clear statement of explanation about volition: "man's consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking) which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess ..., so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes:..." This confirms my view that volitional action, which is metaphysical, is limited to initiating and directing, not the automatic perceptual processes, but the mental cognitive processes. Cognition belongs to the realm of epistemology. The actions of volitional awareness are the primary causal attribute of human consciousness, so there are no prior actions, desires, reasons or values which motivate its primary actions. All that follows from each individual's primary volitional action causes other *secondary and later* effects. Secondary choices are selected from among automatic perceptual contents and/or from volitionally formed conceptual contents in consciousness. Concept formation is a volitional and complex task. All efforts and consequences pertaining to conceptualization is volitional. These are the Objectivist premises: Consciousness is an attribute of certain living beings. Consciousness is a metaphysical axiom. Volition is the attribute of actions in the identity of human consciousness only. Volition is primary causal actions within human consciousness, a metaphysical axiom. A primary attribute of a metaphysical axiom, consciousness, is necessarily metaphysical. Therefore, it is valid to add a suffix *pertaining to attributes of axioms*, and to identify that volition is *axiomatic*. The conclusion based on Objectivist premises is: Volition is *metaphysical* and *axiomatic*. To be continued: My writing on Volition and on Reason are copyrighted. Next: The relation of volition and concepts, and discussing the question, "In Objectivism, is reason metaphysical, or axiomatic, or neither?" Ellen Moore From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: My attitude to Ayn Rand Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:03:28 -0500 To Ellen Stuttle and Phyllis, My response to Rand is more like that of Phyllis than of Ellen. [Phyllis, I'm 74] I think Ellen S. must feel about Jung much the way I feel about Rand. I was always encouraged as a child to think for myself, and I grew up an individualist interested in ideas, especially in morality. For that reason, I always went my own way as an independent and happy member of a group of friends. I gave up religious beliefs by the time I was a teenager, but I did not know enough to be an atheist. At university my main interests were philosophy and psychology, and I learned that I preferred Aristotle to any other philosopher. I read Fountainhead in my late twenties and was impressed with the ideas of the author. I was a mature 37 years old, happy mother of two, fully formed in my ideas [i thought] when I discovered Ayn Rand's full philosophy. I said, She is talking to me; these ideas fit me to a T. I took NBI audio lectures for 3 years and for the next years I've studied Objectivism -- I went back to U in '69 to take my masters in Philosophy and to challenge Objectivist ideas -- and I quit just one year short of my degree when I found the required program so profoundly irrational. I presented the Peikoff lectures in my area and hosted a study group until we moved to our farm full time in '99. As I said I have a passion for Ayn Rand and Objectivism not because it revolutionized my life or my psyche. It was that it presented my values all rolled up in an integrated systematic package. Of course, I learned many new premises identified in Rand's works. I learned to understand and validate why I was an atheist. In other words, I felt an immediate kinship and recognition, and an optimism about how good my life is and would become more so the more I learned and applied what I knew. That has come true. One last note: I never before in my life have met or dealt with the viciousness of the critical opposition I find here among a few libertarians who do not understand me nor agree with premises of Objectivism. Fortunately, by this time in my life I have the knowledge, self-esteem, and self-confidence to fight for my ideas and my values. I learned much from Rand. She's my hero - with a passion. Ellen Moore From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: Re: Sandra, "the half-assed evolutionary Objectivist" Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:17:17 -0500 I have a few comments to offer in response to your post of Sat., 19:32. You offer labels; "half-assed Objectivists" - "post-Objectivist" - "Reform Objectivist" -- as opposed to "Orthodox Objectivist" – and last at last you labeled yourself "the half-assed evolutionary Objectivist". I've also heard of those who call themselves "neo-Objectivist". All of these labels indicate that the person disagrees with fundamental premises of Objectivism, or they disagree with some personal views or tastes that Ayn Rand had expressed. All of these labels identify that someone's purpose is to change Objectivism from the philosophical principles that Ayn Rand identified as Objectivism into something different than was identified by its only authentic author – something that will suit them personally better than Rand's ideas would or could.. Why does anyone want to do so? And why does anyone of them think that they will be able to change what Objectivism actually is? -- after all this philosophy is the specific set of consistently integrated principles based on reason as identified by Ayn Rand. I think you and others should be able to understand that anyone else's intellectual or personal product that contradicts her set of principles at once removes itself from any credit for being labeled as "Objectivism" or "Objectivist". You think this control is in "Leonard Peikoff's hot little hands"? No, it is not! There is no "official" control, and no "orthodox" control, that enables anyone to contradict or change the integrated structure that Objectivism is. Not Peikoff, not Branden, not Kelley, not Mendoza -- and their favorite practice of labeling their disagreements as a "blah-blah-Objectivist" certainly means that they are not in control, nor have any of these groups of hangers-on earned the right to declare they are authentic "Objectivists". They are simply abusing the concept they have not earned but have stolen from Rand. Sad to say, what is mostly evident so far from institutes and students alike, with a few dedicated exceptions, is their lack of knowledge, their lack of understanding, lack of applications, their disagreements, and their distorted interpretations of Rand's works. The context of human knowledge is wide open to further identifications and discoveries. It is wisdom to understand that Objectivist principles are as applicable in the future as they were in Rand's time, or as they are today. Could any great thinker identify a new principle? Yes, Rand did it and it may be done in the future. But it will never be accomplished unless a consistently rational thinker first understands and applies the basic fundamental structure of Objectivism. One cannot add onto that which one never understood. Currently, we have far too many ignorant, contradictory, busybodies who think they can mess up a work of philosophical genius. I for one would be deeply grateful for just one mind who was able to add one clearly rational, innovative idea and apply it without contradiction to the foundation of the work that Rand left us. I view this as my own "cry in the wilderness", and my hope for the future of us all. People like you, Sandra, are free to disagree with Objectivism and with Ayn Rand anytime, anywhere. Just keep in mind that you are judged accordingly. No, I am not an "Orthodox Fundamentalist little Objectivist." I am Ellen Moore, rational individualist dedicated to living according to Objectivist principles. I know Objectivism as well as anyone I've heard of, and I've done a damn fine job of applying it to achieve my happiness in life. Sandra, you offer some statements based on your ignorance of facts. You know nothing about me, so the one thing you cannot substantiate is the implication that I am in any way a second-hander. You make the claim that your ideas are "MINE", and I certainly agree with you since I've already read and evaluated those you've expressed here. On the same basis, you may be certain that my ideas are ~mine~ and mine are "first-handed" all the way down. Credentials? No, you do not have to prove them to me alone. Just keep in mind that every word you write ~is~ being judged by members here and elsewhere. Here's one tip-off for you -- It's not wise to insult members here until after you know and understand what they are offering on Atlantis. Even Kirez advised you to listen, learn and think before you speak. I think you have insulted Bill Dwyer with your ignorance of his intellectual, logical, argumentative acumen. Bill is always a gentleman, and he is one of the most thorough practitioners of logical argument we have here, and beyond that he has the most consistent and persistent talent in presenting his case -- [even when others think he is mistaken :-)]. You could begin by treating his posts with the respect his ideas deserve rather than insulting his knowledge of the world which you know not of. It's also very likely that you failed to understand the context and content of what others are writing (e.g., Jason Alexander), and that it is your responsibility to have the patience to consider and grasp their ideas. Just a thoughtful reminder that you should apply to more than one member here. Ellen Moore From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: Re: To learn Objectivism... Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:42:29 -0500 Mona and Kathleen, Again Kathleen is right. There is only one sure source to learn what Objectivism is - that is from Ayn Rand's written works and written (or taped) transcripts of her lectures and seminars. Also, the original lectures on Objectivism ~authorized for content~ by Ayn Rand at the time, delivered by Nathaniel Branden and by Leonard Peikoff. The advantage of these lectures was that they set out the integrated system of the philosophy - from the foundation set by Metaphysics, through Epistemology to Ethics, which is the basic framework for Politics, and then Aesthetics. {Jason Alexander refers to this structure as "MEEPA". Beyond this systematic integration are the applications based on the principles. Since all knowledge is based on reason within individual contexts, that leaves ample room for individual rational options. All else you read and hear is someone else's interpretations, and those are necessarily to be judged critically ~after~ one knows in one's own judgment what Objectivism actually is according to Rand's identifications. Mona, I want to stress to you that Objectivism, by its very content, integration and structure, is not and cannot ever be a cult of any kind. The possibility that you think some people are acting like cultists should be judged by you as their Not being Objectivists. If you know that anyone is taking Rand's ideas or applications on the basis of faith, then you know they cannot be Objectivists because that contradicts this philosophy. Frankly, I have met very few students who do accept Objectivism on faith - they may lack knowledge, or they may be making errors, but otherwise if they do operate on faith I suggest you avoid them because there is no such position within the framework of Objectivism. Kathleen, You have said that you were "raised on Objectivism", and have implied that later you had to get back in touch with your emotional life [i'm paraphrasing so I hope I correctly understood what you meant]. There are no dichotomies within Objectivism - especially there is no conflict, and should not be in one's life, between one's reason and one's emotion. If this serious error was a part of your upbringing, then you can rest assured that your parental views were based on a serious misunderstanding of Objectivist principles. It's important to understand that a person in applying principles is not the same process as obeying rules of behavior dictated by others. Let me give an example from my own actions as a parent. We had no rules in our home that our children had to follow. We were not authoritarian. Neither did we implement the idea that our children had to accept any idea or opinion presented to them unless they could understand and accept it based on their own judgment of the facts. [This is an application of the "onus of proof principle" - it means that, he who asserts the positive is responsible for proving it is true – and negatives cannot be proven because there is no evidence available for something that does not exist.] I said to our son and daughter when any question arose, "You do not have to believe what anyone tells you unless you are sure it makes sense to you - and that applies to everyone, even Mom and Dad." Needless to say, they made all their own decisions and they both grew up to be very independent and responsible adults. Being individualists, we did voice our own likes and dislikes, but the child's choices were left up to the child. There were only two kinds of circumstances where we as parents took a strong stand, one was in regard to the safety of their lives, and the other was stating clearly that we expected honesty, and we said that they could openly tell us anything, because we did not approve of lying at any time. This policy worked well for us as a family. Ellen M. From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: Re: blah blah Whatever Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:43:00 -0500 Sandra wrote, "I don't have to agree with EVERYTHING a thinker, author, or artist says in order to enjoy them, otherwise, I would have very few thinkers, artists and authors to enjoy -- which seems somewhat the position Objectivists ended up in." This last opinion is wrong! That is certainly a false statement about Objectivists. There is absolutely no reason why Objectivists cannot enjoy aspects of the talent or style of other thinkers, authors and artists who are ~not~ advocates of Objectivism. This is just one more clear instance of the total lack of dogmatism that is in the Objectivist philosophy. Objectivists do enjoy talent and intelligent work wherever it exists, and to whatever extent it exists. For instance, my two stories about my brother Bill were true and admirable. That does not mean that he was the soul of rationality in all other aspects of his life. On the other hand, my Mother was a predominately rational woman, and she strongly influenced my early intellectual and character development -- for instance, some religious music is admirable and very enjoyable to me -- Another example, although Oprah is deeply religious, she is also rational in many practical ways -- she has been a great influence for practical reasoning in television entertainment in the field of books, education, and for the psychological independence and power of women and men. No matter where one looks, enjoyment of artistic talent is a very personal, sense of life, experience. Dennis May wrote about the use of appropriate labels, "I guess my politics are Libertarian and my philosophy Objectivist. ... I am a Hard Determinist, end of story. ... If I agree with much of it [Objectivism] but disagree strongly with other portions I am not a big "O" Objectivist but what other label does Ellen wish me to use. ... The many hyphenated Objectivists have the same problem. Is this a real problem or just the way language works?" There is no real problem here at all about the issue of naming what one's philosophical views really are. It is not a problem of language at all, it's a question of philosophical knowledge, honesty, and integrity. Dennis has told us in the past that he agreed with the axioms of Objectivism. That simply is not true because he contradicts this claim when he says he is "a Hard Determinist, end of story". Holding contradictions with a fixation really cannot be consistent with Objectivist principles. The fact is he cannot honestly label himself an Objectivist. He probably is a political Libertarian of some faction or other. e.g., Debbie Clark is a self-declared Christian Libertarian Anarchist - But Objectivist? No! It's all a matter of one's knowing the principles and applying them validly. If one is guided by faith and mysticism, that excludes every aspect of Objectivism. If one is a Hard or Soft Determinist that commitment excludes the principles of Objectivism. Bill Dwyer is a Self-declared Soft Determinist and he uses the philosophical label, "Compatibilism". Why are these, among many others, sure signals that one is not an Objectivist? 1. Objectivism is founded on fundamental principles of reason and reality - so faith and mysticism is epistemologically invalid. 2. Objectivism is founded on the fundamental principle that "Man is a Being of Volitional Consciousness", so all versions of epistemological and psychological Determinism are metaphysically and epistemologically invalid. 3. If one is ~not~ an advocate of Limited Constitutional Government and Laissez-faire Capitalism, then one is politically in disagreement with Objectivism. And the list goes on... Not being an Objectivist does not imply that one is irrational at all other times - one may indeed hold mixed premises that causes continuous conflicts. Yet one may have what I like to call "flashes of reason" on specific issues. If one does not rate as a consistent Objectivist, one may still be ~at times~ correct about an issue, may be of good character and pleasant personality. But conflicts of this kind indicate a non-integrated thinker But if one is a self-declared Racist, one is not a rational individualist, one is an irrational collectivist, and that certainly means one is NOT an Objectivist. These are not "rules", these are a few indications of ~Principles~ of Objectivism! "What [Dennis asks] other label does Ellen wish me to use? My answer is, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" -- But do not claim that your philosophy is Objectivism and a Determinist at the same time and the same respect - that is a direct contradiction. Holding such a fundamental fixated contradiction means that your own metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics must be flawed in important methods and contents. You can choose any other label that really applies to your set of ideas, but NOT "Objectivist". Or, you can just explain to any listener, in language he can understand, that you agree with X named principle [or application] of Objectivism. Or you can explain why you like some aspects of Rand's novels, but not others. It's just that easy! Now take a person like Mona who is currently assessing the context and contents of Objectivism to see whether this philosophy may suit her. Well, years ago what we used to call ourselves was to say, "A Student of Objectivism" Or a student could add, "So far I agree with X... principles and X application." All that takes is learning all the principles, and then with an honest self-evaluation be able to make rational judgments to decide if one actually ~IS~ an Objectivist or not. Anyone who wants to adopt this principled philosophy, "to make it your own", is always welcomed generously by those dedicated to the principles that are truly of Objectivism. Ellen M. From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: The Objectivist Theory of Volition - Ellen S. Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:41:07 -0600 Ellen Stuttle asks, What does "volitional consciousness" mean, and how is Rand's statement, "Man is a being of volitional consciousness" to be interpreted? Rand maintained that having a volitional consciousness differentiates man from all other species. It means that the attribute of volition makes humans different from all other species. Other species do not possess volition. So what is volition? Volition is the *metaphysical* attribute of action in the identity of human consciousness. Volition allows a human to initiate and direct the actions [the motions] of one's consciousness, of awareness, and of one's mental cognition. What are these volitional actions? They are actions of initiating, directing controlling and sustaining one's awareness of aspects of existents [of things] in reality. When Rand speaks of consciousness as an axiom, it means that it is an attribute at some specific level of action in all living [animate] entities. Inanimate matter is not live and is not conscious. There are levels in consciousness; some live entities have only sensations and act upon them; others act on the level of perceptions. Human action has at least three levels - our actions are based on sensation, perception and conception. Sensation and perception are automatic and physical. Conception is volitional, abstract, and mental - and is based on whether we initiate, and how we use and direct our perceptions. We are not aware of sensations, so the base of human knowledge of reality is our automatic physical perceptions of things. Beyond that, cognition is volitionally acquired Sensation and perception is physical, biological, and these function automatically by means of the system of organs in the physical body; senses, nervous system and brain. Humans have no choice about the fact that our consciousness is aware of perception of existents around us, we normally, automatically, feel, see, hear, taste, and smell things. Volitional consciousness acts in many ways distinctive to humans that other species cannot. One can omit measurements, detect similarities, abstract units, and form a mental integration we call a concept, or we may not. This means that valid conceptualization, i.e., that is true of reality, is not an automatic process because human consciousness is fallible. One can make mistakes. One can form concepts volitionally, or not; One can think conceptually long range, or not; One can learn to introspect, or not; One can identify general principles, or not; One can grasp moral principles, or not; One can act on one's knowledge, or not; One can subvert, evade, and corrupt one's knowledge, or not One can subvert, evade, and corrupt one's psychology - for better or for worse. [Evasion is the human ability to act to shut off one's awareness of specific things or facts one refuses to acknowledge.] One can deny that Man is volitional, but one thing we humans cannot do is avoid the fact that we are volitionally conscious, and we do not necessarily have to act on the basis of our automatic physical perceptions of reality. Perception is valid, yet we can act against our perception of reality, we can deny the truth, and we can destroy ourselves. Life or death is our only option as living entities with a volitional consciousness Why? Because the metaphysical identity of Man is such that each individual consciousness *is* volitional. All one is free to do is to initiate, direct, control and sustain one's conscious awareness of reality, OR one is free to evade the responsibility of being conscious. This is the way that Rand's statement about Man is to be interpreted. At least, it is my interpretation. I am one who is convinced that it is a volitional consciousness that allows all human beings to be what they are, and act as they do. We create who and what we are, how and why we think and feel, and why we each live as we do. Ellen M. From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca> To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: Back when Atlantis was down - Moore vs Rand on Volition Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:23:42 -0600 Jeff Olson wrote an Offlist post on Dec. 20, entitled "Paradoxes of Volition and Determinism (Part 1: Moore vs. Rand, and motives behind "chosen reason".) He sent it to 12 persons. Then he sent a different second post with the same title to Nathaniel Branden and the others [13 in all] When Atlantis was restored some of those posts, in part or whole, were re-posted to ATL. Yet Jeff's originals have not been repeated or discussed. Those first posts from Jeff were interesting, and they must have furthered another "go" at the volition versus determinism debate - so far totally unresolved. But I am going to deal with the specific issues therein that relate to my views on volition that I have presented onlist. Jeff's title would give the impression that my views oppose Rand's views, but that is not relevant to the argument he presents. Jeff was actually presenting the idea that Rand's views and mine follow the same theme, and that I travel further in her footsteps in saying that volition is the attribute of consciousness that primarily initiates and directs the further development of a human being's life, cognition and character. This is true, but that view IS Rand's position. In fact, it is interesting that Jeff acknowledges my position on Rand's so well, and yet he chooses to follow the determinist's contradictory bent to have volition [which he calls 'will'] and be determined too. Now here is what Jeff maintains -- "Ellen Moore makes such a peculiar hash of the role of volition in human action, but I'm not sure that the same insight entirely spare's Rand's views as well." "First, to Rand's advantage, she apparently realized that demoting reason to the handmaiden of volition reduces volition to an empty concept -- since in the absence of conceptual development and its attendant reasoning ability, volition has nothing to do *except to perform as an automatic, unconsciously directed process.* " Nothing could be farther from the truth about Rand's views or mine. Rand's view is that the attribute of Consciousness is a metaphysical axiom. And Volition is an attribute of human consciousness only. Rand wrote that, Volition, "*by its metaphysically given nature*" ... "does not contradict the fact of identity" ... man's consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking) which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess. ... so man is able to initiate and direct his mental actions only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes. ... He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt, or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow. (The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man's choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul.) "

Stuttle, You still don't get it, and I believe that this is from your own lack of reading carefully. I don't care about what you say. You blah blah blah all over the place all the time, often hair-splitting over nothing just so you can say you were not wrong when you were wrong. What you say varies with the wind blowing. I judge what you do. It's not what you say, it's what you do that I find disgusting. Is there any clearer way to say this for you to read it and understand it? I've said it many times and it always escapes you. As for the rest, despite all your blah blah blah, I stand by everything I wrote. Michael

Fakey Name one and Fakey Name two have numerous personal bones to pick with their personal Bad Girl, non-Fakey Name, Marine welfare whore Kacy Ray. A full on "but she is baaaaaaaad, please help me punish her with scolding and withholding, and secrets told, the very Bad Girl's shocking history of being Bad." Bad Girl Kacy, with her large inquisitive eyes and her large Marine shoulders, is doing what a lot of girls like to do these days -- argue on public forums. The other two, McFakeyOne and McFakeyTwo, are trying to get read into the record the true and eternal sins of Bad Girl. Is this fun? Is this reasonable, reasoned and reason-rich, fodder for those like me and PDS and those who have roots extending back a few years here? I say it is not so much fun to have two crabby girls repeat four times too many times the deep defects of their Bad Girl. How to make "You are a bad girl and by now everyone should know it" exchanges more fun? I don't know. I don't know if it is possible. I have no faith whatsoever in Alex Jones, no expectations that he will dig past notions and suppositions to truth. I have no faith that Alex Jones knows how to reason his way to accuracy. I have seen enough of his deeply irrational outbursts to dismiss him as a fair player in the 'Information Wars.' Any examination of Alex Jones means examination of his output, for me -- are his claims true, are his sources sound, are his conclusions valid? Bad Girl Kacy says (it seems from the good girls' reckoning): "Alex Jones is fucked, as a purveyor of news and analysis." I agree. Be that as it may, how many more times will McFakerham bore readers with the intensely personal girl-on-girl action of "You, you you you you you You, are a Bad Girl. You you you you"? [redacted] 1. Kacy trolls. We/I are troll patrollers 2.Blah blah blah 3.He's trolling 4. He is on government subsistence 6. Kacy is bitchy too! This is poison. The intensely personal nature of this riposte to PDS is troubling to me. Using a bit of reduction, I could fairly say that the portly pseudonym is expecting all and sundry to agree that a dark badness infects Kacy and renders him Beyond Bad on scales of integrity and humanity. It is ugly in a psychological way, I find. If I was a girl on the outskirts of this three-way invecta-blah, I would edge ever so carefully further away. I would wonder why the goal seems to be Negation, and why the sentence sought by Judges Girlfake and GirlFalloon is so, um, Final, punitive. I might even consider that the two Kacy-glued McPersonalBitchos are fixated on vanquishing Kacy. Not mere correcting, but a bowed head, full acknowledgement that the good girls judgement was correct and necessary. I would probably get the impression that whatever the truth in their estimations of Kacy's argument, it is a creepy thing to expect him to submit to their psychological judgments and sentencing suggestions. This is the rough ground, when "Your argument is faulty" becomes "You. You you you. You are Bad. Bad to the bone. Admit it, or me and Stacey will make you suffer forevermore, wherever you alight." t's intellectually lazy to suggest, implicitly or otherwise, that the basic need for a military ... negates the plain reality that the military is ... a de facto jobs/welfare program for people who otherwise would have been cyclically unemployed or suffering degrees of economic hardship. The passive-aggressive stance is notable, despite a bland tone. Am I supposed to accept that Bad Girl Kacy is a military-welfare queen? Does the first set (military welfare queens) fully comprise the second set (Marines) and fully comprise the third set (bad girl Kacy)? Why the persistently personal cast? What would benefit you two girls if everyone shared your odd insistent psychological judgments -- if we all here said we believed Kacy to be a military-welfare queen, what then? What does that judgement entail? What is the sentencing required?

The issue of atheism and "knowing there is no god" is complicated by the fact that in these discussions, "god" is typically defined in the terms of Abrahamic Monotheism (i.e. an omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent-omnibenevolent creator-god whom created all of existence ex nihilo blah blah blah). THIS concept of god is logically impossible and thus I can be 100% sure that this entity, as described (or any entities with the same description) does not exist. When we look at non-self-contradictory conceptions of god/s (I think a small number of branches of Christianity, including Mormonism, have conceptions of god which aren't self-contradictory, and the vast majority of neopagan faiths have non-self-contradictory ideas of god as well), then the atheist case shifts to the Burden Of Proof argument; I lack belief in these gods because I have seen no evidence that these gods exist. However, at least THEORETICALLY, these gods COULD exist... but that doesn't constitute evidence that they DO exist. In other words, I am a Hard Atheist (and also an anti-theist but that's a different issue) with respect to Jehovah (and similarly-situated entities). I am a Soft Atheist with respect to Thor (and similarly-situated entities).

Thanks for the reply, and for taking the time to review this thread. I don't know how to assess the general effectiveness of my posts above. I showed to myself how the mirror-image of Bob's statement failed to actually parallel Bob's logical point. I think you committed an error, using a false analogy in order to invite mockery of Bob's argument. You think I committed an error in analysis -- or that the analysis as such was a "clever pretzel of blah blah blah" even if it was correct. The pith was: "I wasn't dissing you, but pointing out that your analogy didn't hold because you mistransposed the elements of Bob's argument." There's nothing for me to say about your kid -- I have never suggested you have done anything wrong in his care -- I defer to you as a parent and I have no doubt that you and Kat will continue to be most excellent parents. The broader issues of 'vaccine controversy' don't to my mind have any effect on your care or love, and I certainly do not think Sean needs 'protection' from your ignorance. About the crapload of yadda yadda, this has little to do with me or Sean or my appraisal of a failed analogy, as far as I can tell. It seems quite silly to propose a scenario where William sends government 'after your kid.' I know you are not serious about that. I could never do that to you with a child under your care -- and I can't imagine any 'treatment' of Sean that is any of my business. I'll admit my failure. I didn't convince you that my analysis was useful. You think your analogy was fair, that it exposed a crazy illogic in Bob's argument. I think your analogy was unfair, that it invited mockery where mockery was not justified.

“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” I'm not on the fence because I'm not part of the divide. I have no wish to be part, either. Over the years you have spoken quietly and convincingly about the dangers of strictly dichotomous debate, debate that dehumanizes, evokes fear and anger and proceeds like a war, full of agitation and propaganda and shouting. I think we tend to agree on fundamentals more than we disagree (having used my gumption, I reviewed our previous exchanges on vaccines and autism, as well as conversations between you and others). Last year we came close to agreement on this much: "It's fair to say that the causes of autism spectrum disorders are currently unknown." I'm seeking agreement, agreement between rational minds at work, agreement by concerted effort. I seek agreement with reality, and I believe that reality can be best approached by reason. Ayn Rand said something about conflicts of interest between rational men. I think we have a harmony of interests. We each want an answer to the same question, "whether vaccinations are causally related to Dxes of autism." The scope of the agreement may be limited here and there, but I think we share goals -- l want better treatment options for autistic children and adults, I want that a cure be found. I want early detection of autism, so that the earliest interventions can ameliorate or reverse deficits. I want research that is unbiased, well-designed, and methodologically above reproach, and I want that research to include all plausible models and theories of causation. I want parents to be able to access the most reliable information when making vaccination decisions. I don't want anyone forced to be vaccinated except under the direst conditions of danger. We agree: "As you point out, there is plenty of passion and a hard dose of extremism (or perhaps better called extreme disempathy) in a few pockets, and the passion on either 'side' is not an indication that this position or that position is credible or ratified by scientific investigation." I wish the very best to your stepson and you and Kat in your daily struggles and triumphs with the boy that you dearly love. There are a few words slung about that might sting, I think ... I got stung over being accused of "pretzel" logic and 'blah blah blah.' But that wasn't snark. Neither was the idea that I am bludgeoning folks over the head with my agenda. I tried to lay out how I arrived at my own confidence. I pointed out the error in your analogy to Bob's statements. I demonstrated (at boring length) that your analogy was false. Your analogy was a 'gotcha' moment, meant I thought to make Bob's reasoning silly. You invited readers to mock his conclusion by comparing it to a ridiculous similar-seeming conclusion. Comparing the two and figuring out the difference between them was a tricky logical puzzle for me. I can apologize for the boredom resulting from trying to show my work. But after a couple thousand posts here I figure there will always be failures to communicate. But let me finish by scoping out a few more areas of agreement on the issues that snarl about the Autism/Vaccination association. I agree that there is a lot of bigoted kind of thinking about this issue and not always so much common sense. I agree that discussion has in some places degenerated into 'monsterizing' the erstwhile opponents on the other side. I agree that parents who are cautious about vaccination can be deemed 'enemies' and that those who support 'the system' of vaccines deemed enemies in return. You and I are not enemies of reason. We are not enemies in conversation here, nor motivated to fight or argue merely to fight or argue. Sometimes we seem combatants in extended argument, seem to be disagreeable as well as disagreeing. As here, disagreement often arises from misunderstanding. Although we can be skeptical of a person's declared motives, we needn't infer additional malign motives, but instead explore the possibility of misunderstanding or other accident of communication before we suggest bad faith. Good advice for any issue.

William, All that effort. Dayamm! I admire your gumption. But you wasted it because you are squarely on one side of the fence and used the wrong tool. Persuasion-wise, it was clever pretzel of blah blah blah, but I seriously doubt it was effective. The worst thing you can do with a metaphor is try to dissect it and make it make sense. (I speak from study and practice.) Besides, flipping a meta-construction only works the first time and I already did that. A meta-construction is the form underlying an aphorism or statement. When you insist on continuing--like people who change the words of a song once again after someone just did it--and it is agenda-driven without flair, surprise, or something to spice it up, people tune out (except the choir, and even they don't get excited over it). Let me give you an example: Sermon on the Mount - the SOLO Version. This was considered lame even back then. (Just look at the lukewarm response, not from the choir, but signaled by the absence of everyone else.) Why? Because it added nothing new, just a tired old agenda that everyone already knew. I fear your effort did that, too. Not for me and not for you, but for the general reader. If you want to counter what I did, may I suggest coming up with a different metaphor that attacks mine? One with humor or surprise or both? Now here's a secret. It must be something that allows people to figure out the meaning on their own. (Notice that mine did that. This is what gave it teeth.) It was my third try to explain to myself why I thought your take-off on Bob was unfair. I tried to show my work at length. I wasn't dissing you, but pointing out that your analogy didn't hold because you mistransposed the elements of Bob's argument. In his the first victim of autism/accidental death did not have airbag/vaccine ... whereas in yours the first victim did have airbag/vaccine. In yours, both had airbags, so it didn't properly map to what Bob is saying. I'd say that using analogies to do the work of argument can be difficult. It's a kind of abstraction or mapping of concepts, and as I discovered, seemingly direct analogous reasoning can lead to bizarre results. I do use metaphor and analogies, and I accept criticism where the devices are misplaced or poorly translated. As for the rest of your critique on style and so on, well put, and thank you. The general reader would, I think, snooze through the above failed analysis. You were my ideal audience for my trying to figure out what was wrong with your admittedly punchy analogy to Bob's argument. Beyond that, we probably have no argument on a lot of the details of what Bob is so pithily and pitilessly droning on about. I laid out that material as I understood a page or so ago. You aren't on either side of the fence I think you mentioned I had taken a side of. This means you haven't been convinced one way or the other about vaccine-autism link. Bob and I are confident in saying the link is not proven. And I believe we are correct. If you are on the fence, what kind of material or argument would convince you that the link has not been proven? Or if you don't want to specify, maybe you acknowledge that Bob and I probably did not get to our confidence by irrational means, by screams or heightened emotion or misapplied zeal or general nastiness or pomposity. I only now click the Sermon on Mount Perigo. Yow. What a pompous, ridiculous self-elevating prat was Lindsay in the day, huh? I notice you ragged him well.

My Grandparents went to England from Russia , then my mom came to Canada as a teenager . The other side , came via Auschwitz . Grandmother , Grandfather and his 2 brothers had to stay in those French camps , but my Grandmother ( I knew her from birth till like around 20 years old ) , she was amazing , she told me the stories when I was old enough to understand . My dads dad though , he actually survived Auschwitz ( I mean , how ? What did he have to do ? How did he endure , right ? ) , then he died after liberation . My dad was hid in European Churches , and eventually got here to Toronto as well . See , your Grandparents were happy to be free , hence they chanted their chant . They were " delighted " , and God Bless them because they deserved to be . I think as you sit on an intellectual high throne as an obvious Elitist , how can you dare say that you dont think he is that smart . Based on that day that he announced on the escalator that he was coming into the game - well besides MSK , no one on Earth achieved what Mike did - calling that straight up .. Straight the fuck up . Trump went from there , where you did not stand up and state shit about the most remote chance that we could be discussing President Trumps , thought process on a Nuclear option , with the worlds " balh blah blah about finger on the button " . North Korea , all all the stuff this thread discusses You just shrug this off ( pun very fucking intended ) , like he is not that smart ? define smart ? Seriously , define smart . My definition of smart goes way past these ridiculous word games . "If" he has enough brains to let the experts ????????? These same experts did not believe he could win a state , along with you . Those same experts ????? There is but one expert on DT , and its DT . He keeps doing the same stuff yet gets zero credit . Its actually exhausting watching folks slag him . He is John Galt for god sake . President Trump : A) Is smart enough B) Does have enough brains C ) Your Grandchildren Sir , or your generations Grandchildren are not simply delighted with basic human rights . This generation , wants it all .Thank God . Thank God , for Donald Trump . Thank God that President Trump even exists . Your generation said to my Generation , why did you not bring home an A , President Trump brought home that A , you people keep saying " I want an A+ every time and every headline . I say , fuck that PS , you're a keyboard gangster who would never in person say to President Trump , President Obama , or any living US President " you're not that smart "

William, All that effort. Dayamm! I admire your gumption. But you wasted it because you are squarely on one side of the fence and used the wrong tool. Persuasion-wise, it was clever pretzel of blah blah blah, but I seriously doubt it was effective. The worst thing you can do with a metaphor is try to dissect it and make it make sense. (I speak from study and practice.) Besides, flipping a meta-construction only works the first time and I already did that. A meta-construction is the form underlying an aphorism or statement. When you insist on continuing--like people who change the words of a song once again after someone just did it--and it is agenda-driven without flair, surprise, or something to spice it up, people tune out (except the choir, and even they don't get excited over it). Let me give you an example: Sermon on the Mount - the SOLO Version. This was considered lame even back then. (Just look at the lukewarm response, not from the choir, but signaled by the absence of everyone else.) Why? Because it added nothing new, just a tired old agenda that everyone already knew. I fear your effort did that, too. Not for me and not for you, but for the general reader. If you want to counter what I did, may I suggest coming up with a different metaphor that attacks mine? One with humor or surprise or both? Now here's a secret. It must be something that allows people to figure out the meaning on their own. (Notice that mine did that. This is what gave it teeth.) That would be a lot more effective. And creative. Not to you feeling good and believing you trounced the enemy or whatever you were attempting, perhaps, but in terms of getting people who are not committed to actually consider that your side is the One True Way forever and ever Amen. If you bludgeon folks over the head with your agenda, they tune out. (Unless you throw in good storytelling like Rand did.) I can't offer any better tactics for now because I am not on either side. I am outside that particular agenda divide. (I have a kid to take care of, one I love dearly, and that trumps all rhetorical pastimes or political shenanigans.) But if I think of something, I'll let you know. Michael

Here is the rub. Society (in other words, law, at least in principle) is based on ethics. Law can either be objective (i.e., based on man's nature and individual rights), or it can be at the whim of the rulers (i.e., subjective in relation to the rulers and simply commands to be obeyed by everyone else). I can't think of another realistic alternative. If people are to live in an ethical society with objective laws, there must be objective values. An objective law without an objective value underpinning it is a contradiction. There's more. Without objective laws based on objective values, there is only one social alternative that will arise irrespective of any blah blah blah about values being subjective: tribal warfare. That's reality trumping the blah blah blah and it will trump it every time. History has presented this over and over. One would think the apologists of subjective ethics would tire of it. Michael

I am going to blow some BS out of the water right now. Xray is a dishonest poster. All during these discussions, I have been having one hell of a time trying to find quotes by her that I know I read, especially after her point had been debunked. I wanted to quote her when she was making those coy requests to people, asking where she had said this or that. But the quotes were nowhere to be found. This happened time and time again. For instance, when she interpreted a statement by Brant as him abandoning Objectivism, she almost melted down in in an ecstatic gush of hallelujah and promptly started "guiding" him on the path to the One True Way. I wanted to comment on it at the time since it turned my stomach, but I did not have time. As things progressed, it fell to the wayside in my mind until much later. Then I mentioned it and Brant (not her this time) asked where she had done that. I could not find it, yet I know I read it. There are many other cases. So I started getting suspicious that she was changing her past posts to make anyone new reading the discussion from the beginning look like she never made a statement others later claimed she made, thus making honest posters look like fools to newcomers. By accident, I came across absolute proof of this. I decided to look up her post where Dragonfly had trouble reading her words to quote them to him. I first encountered where I had quoted them from before: Simple enough answer from me: Yes. But I decided to look at what she had posted originally so I could link to her original post. Lo and behold, here is what I found: Yes. I value truth as in corresponence with reality. Then there followed some blah blah blah I do not recall reading back then amidst some other blah blah blah. But I will not swear to that part since I have no record of it. Now, I have no problem with a person changing typos, spelling mistakes, or things like that much later. I do that sometimes. Idea-wise, I also have a habit in my own posting to change it around during the first few minutes after posting if it has not been discussed. But I do not go back to previous posts after hours or days have passed where people have discussed it and change the ideas or delete things because they did not fit a later argument. Even if I add one of my "EDIT:" comments, I usually mention this in a later post. I consider changing the actual ideas in past posts without telling anyone dishonest and petty. And it is. It is essentially rewriting history, something I blame ARI for with Rand's works. It is contemptible. It is the mark of someone interested in a mission, not interested in the truth. (Or better yet, someone for whom the truth is subjective in the extreme.) I am actually glad this happened because I was forced to learn how to limit this feature in the forum software. From now on, members have 30 minutes to edit their posts. After that, the posts are set in stone. Unfortunately for the hapless Xray, she will have to live with the nonsense she writes after it is later shown to be nonsense. And people will be able to quote her nonsense in the words she expressed it in, not in some later fabrication that makes the person objecting look like he was in error. My respect for Xray, which had been sorely wavering, is now several long rungs lower. Michael (EDIT TO DRAGONFLY: How's that for gotcha? I don't play gotcha like you claimed earlier, and I wasn't playing it in the instance you claimed. But when I do play gotcha, I do it right. I catch dishonest and blatant intents to fool people, for instance. Now let's see if you can justify or rationalize this crap out of the person you admire.)

AlJazeera different layout Shorter speech: "I am not going anywhere. Blah blah blah. I am not going anywhere. I have decided, I I I me me me, my government, I have directed, I decree, I me my mine not going. Crowd reaction: "Get out! Get out! Get out you stupid old patronizing fuck! Get out! Get out!" President: "I hear you, oh youth. I me my decree stay blah blah" Crowd reaction: "He shall leave! Get out!" What a sad, empty bag of bullshit Pharoah delivered. Is it up to the Egyptian army now?