PDS
-
Posts
2,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by PDS
-
-
11 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:
Place yer bets, Trump to announce VP pick on Friday:
I will be making the announcement of my Vice Presidential pick on Friday at 11am in Manhattan. Details to follow.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2016I'm hoping it's Newt
I am going to predict it is Ted Cruz.
-
14 minutes ago, moralist said:
Well... we will always have two different views on that, Bob.
Not knowing Donald personally, I believe what people say who are the closest to him because they actually do know him personally and they're sincere..
I think the real reason Trump rubs you the wrong way is because you were a government educated and employed intellectual, while he's an independent American entrepreneur. These two distinctly divergent life paths are bound to be the result of two completely different world views.
Greg
Give it a rest, will ya? Do you realize that virtually everybody you are talking to on this forum is "government educated", as you call it, i.e., they went to public schools of some kind, at one time or another? Do you not also realize that most on this forum did not learn Objectivism in those public schools?
We get it. You're proud of yourself as an electrician. You're proud you don't have college degrees. You're proud you've made some money. Good for you.
I suspect you're not only the person around who makes payrolls twice a month and has some money in the bank.
And Bob is not the only one who Trump rubs the wrong way. Please give your tropes a rest.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Bob,
The words of wisdom I gleaned from your posts: Builders are evil if they brag since bragging nullifies achievement, but moochers are good if they tinker since tinkering nullifies mooching.
Michael
In fairness to Bob, I doubt he would care as much that Trump is a boor were Trump not running for President.
In unfairness to Bob, I am still waiting to hear how he knows he's smarter than 95% of the rest of us.
-
On 7/2/2016 at 2:42 PM, caroljane said:
Apropos of above, he has also sent fundraising letters to the more conservative of Canadian politicians, of which some are sitting Members of Parliament. (This kind of solicitation from foreigners is illegal here). Now, that is humorous -- or maybe not. Aaargh, it's enough to make you start wondering if there is something to a New World Order and Bird's Nest Head is its prophet.
Carol:
No more hit and runs. Please stick around!
-
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Bob,
Probably his greatest: dismantling the social engineering of the behavioral technocrats of the endless-war-for-profit political machine and restoration of a different kind of social engineering from an individualist viewpoint in America.
Has this restoration of occurred as of yet?
Is so, I missed it.
-
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:
But a scientific sheep. Trump is hot air and bad manners. I hope he is elected. When we have to pick up the pieces of his ruination, I will be happy to say I told you so. I feel superior because I am smarter than 95 percent of the human race (right now). 50 years ago I was even smarter, but not particularly wise.
I'm confused.
Is being smarter than 95% of the human race a claim worth repeating, especially when you're talking to MSK, William, and Jonathan--no slouches in that department themselves?
You specifically claim this makes you feel superior, but you're using the claim more like an appeal to authority. You think you're shooting a bullet out of your gun and a little tiny flag droops out instead.
Now, if you were/are smarter than 95% of the people on this forum---that would be worth bragging about...!
-
1 hour ago, moralist said:
While your head is in the dead past... you're a slave to your liberal government in the present.
Greg
18 short words plus at least 5 fallacies wedged into a single sentence.
Greg--I believe this may be your personal record.
-
36 minutes ago, Peter said:
Ba’al asked us to “Read what Lucretius has to say on the matter,” and it is interesting. He thought of this a really long time ago. Astounding. When he talks about the supernatural, and the powers of the deities, “which leads to an invective against the gigantic monster superstition, and a thrilling picture of the horrors which attends its tyrannous sway,” Lucretius is describing silly Greg to a tee.
Peter
Incredibly, Lucretius is more subtle that you are giving him credit for, and Greg is less subtle than you are giving him credit for...
-
21 hours ago, Peter said:
As Bill Clinton’s recent attempt to bribe a public official (or in some way influence the investigation) demonstrates, the Republicans cannot rely on the justice system to win the election.
Peter
How do you know Bill Clinton tried to influence an investigation, let alone bribe somebody?
-
On 6/29/2016 at 1:15 PM, PDS said:
Hmmm.
Today's Trump sure doesn't sound like he did way back in 2013:
"My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.
Is this possible? Is this a new frontier? Yes and no. There is the fait accompli strategy -- stay under the radar -- and the passive aggressive strategy, acts of terror used to paralyze and so on -- so the bottom line must be balance. Rationality must rule. There are philosophical approaches to economics. However, at this point, we don't so much need philosophy as we need action. Which way to proceed is the question."
A cynic might conclude that...ah, never mind.
Hmmm.
Today's Trump sure doesn't sound like he did way back in 2014 either.
I'm sure glad Trump and I never became golfing buddies...
A cynic might conclude that...ah, never mind.
-
Hmmm.
Today's Trump sure doesn't sound like he did way back in 2013:
"My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.
Is this possible? Is this a new frontier? Yes and no. There is the fait accompli strategy -- stay under the radar -- and the passive aggressive strategy, acts of terror used to paralyze and so on -- so the bottom line must be balance. Rationality must rule. There are philosophical approaches to economics. However, at this point, we don't so much need philosophy as we need action. Which way to proceed is the question."
A cynic might conclude that...ah, never mind.
-
3 hours ago, moralist said:
This guy's got balls!
He does have big ones.
And that brunette in the red necklace seems to want a closer look at them...
-
21 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:
The Monarchy reigns but does not rule. Parliament is the sovereign body in Britain. Britain has an unwritten constitution and is a quasi-republic. It keeps a hereditary monarchy for show and ceremony.
Here is the blurb from the Wiki article:
The monarch and his or her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is, by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.
ba'al chatzaf
Gee, Baal. Thanks.
I have also heard that sometime in the recent past, we Americans landed astronauts on the moon. Can you help me with that puzzle too?
-
On 6/24/2016 at 5:28 PM, BaalChatzaf said:
Santanna said: Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
Has Britain recently lost a World War while I wasn't paying attention?
In the last 200 years, has Britain shown a fondness for monarchic rule, or one person rule?
Do the English have a fondness for totalitarianism as reflected in centuries of its literature, music, or mythology?
I didn't think so.
Forgot what Santanna said, and remember instead what happened to the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
-
36 minutes ago, Lightyearsaway said:
Haha, that was the 2nd most ethical option (and only "once the population has greatly been reduced"). But since I already fulfilled the 1st most ethical option (non-breeding), I need not pursue the 2nd.
Gotcha ;)
Why not pursue both?
-
3 hours ago, Guyau said:
.
Michael said at the top of this page "I believe Trump is going to bury Clinton in November."
RCP: Clinton v. Trump v. Johnson
If Trump were to bury Clinton, it looks so far that that would have to be by a steep decline in support for Clinton. Trump has now about the percent he is going to get then. He is not someone over whom vast numbers of voters are not yet decided. Even if he comes up to 40% in a bury-victory, it will remain that 60% of the country voted against him (and the ones who didn't vote certainly were not among his supporters).
There are a lot of things not to like about Trump winning, but I don't think this is one of them.
Bill Clinton won in the early 90's with a low 40% plurality. That didn't seem to affect him much. Nobody complained that he hadn't won fair and square.
No recent President has won much more than 50% of the vote, so a 40%+ plurality victory, ala Bill Clinton, doesn't say much--one way or another. Moreover, the same will likely be true for Hillary.
-
36 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:
That is Good News and Bad News. Think of Germany between 1925 and 1945.
No thank you.
Let us avoid both Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hilterum just this once.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-
Anybody who has done even a modicum of martial arts knows that the best way to beat someone begins and ends with hip rotation.
Hip rotation generates the necessary power for any beating. Of course, if the idea is simply to "win the fight", a direct strike to a vital area is in order. Maybe an eye gouge? Make sure the person is not wearing glasses if you go that route.
This Saudi fellow doesn't really know how to beat on somebody.**
-------------------------------------------------
**For the "SJW" subset of OL that loves to pretend to be offended (both of you), the following disclaimer is in order: I am kidding. I don't condone wife beating. I barely condone dog beatings.****
****This last sentence is a joke too. Don't get your knickers in a twist, for chrisssakes.
-
On 2/5/2016 at 2:41 PM, George H. Smith said:
Was Kant somehow responsible for the rise of Nazism? Smith explores two points of view on this issue. This essay discusses the views of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff on Kant.
Ghs
These essays are wonderful for all of the obvious reasons, and one perhaps more subtle as well: GHS is an outstanding writer. When discussing complicated issues, the presence of outstanding, crystal-clear writing has a multiplier effect in helping others to understand those issues.
Thank you George.
-
22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Michael,
In fiction, Rand said the writer, to get a good plot, had to work according to Aristotle's final causation principle even though (she claimed) that did not actually exist. As I understand it, final causation is an end result or effect that pulls its earlier incomplete parts toward it as opposed to efficient causation in which things act as causes that produce later effects.
She discussed this in The Art of Fiction--more precisely, in her fiction writing course, which was then condensed and edited into the book by another.
From this angle, I can understand her reluctance to entertain any value in nonrepresentational plastic art. I think she must have imagined what the artist viewed as normal or ideal thinking before painting the first stroke, then shuddered at a mind that thinks like that.
There might be a question there you might want to look at. Rather than come up with one, I'm just putting this thought out. I haven't seen many people talk about Aristotle's theories of causation as Rand used them for art, so it's a fertile topic for newness.
On another point, there is something I believe needs to be addressed in O-Land: snobbery. I'm serious.
During Rand's life and since then, I have seen representational art used as a key marker for the Objectivist ingroup and outgroup. And it is a moral marker at that.
But that's just the start. When representational art is discussed by certain Objectivist types, I often see them effect an overly refined posture that reminds me of a snooty Englishman looking down his nose and saying about an offense against refined taste, "But my dear sir, that is simply not done among decent society. Everybody knows... (yada yada yada)." I don't see this kind of snobbery when our dear little connoisseurs talk to "the enemy." But I have seen it a lot when they discuss things among the ingroup.
I guess the question would be where does the aesthetic inner life of a viewer end and the fear of ingroup peer pressure start? And what can be done to help a newbie navigate this so he stays true to his own inner aesthetic experience? What are the landmines along the way?
I see a huge booby-trap for self-deception in the O-Land snobbery about representational art and I have observed it over years. Note, this is not the same thing as defending nonrepresentational art. I am criticizing the snobbery, not the aesthetic, which I believe is only used as a tool and weapon when this snobbery arises.
I'm not going to point fingers at anyone--nor am I saying you are such a snob (and I don't believe you are)--because I am raising this issue as an issue, not as an attack on any particular people. And since Rand herself encouraged certain people who acted like this, I think she had a touch herself--probably due to her nostalgia for pre-WWI upper class European culture, which she sometimes wrote beautifully about.
Michael
Lots of wisdom in these comments, me thinks.
-
On 6/11/2016 at 11:18 AM, william.scherk said:
Mitt the milk and toast man made some friendly noises about Gary Johnson in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. From an intriguing Guardian story on Johnson:
Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the Libertarians.
“If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president,” he said. Weld is Johnson’s running mate and preceded Romney as governor of Massachusetts.
Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.
In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton’s nomination for the party. He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding: “We’re on the same page when it comes to people and their choices.”
Mitt's toe-test of the Johnson water got under somebody's skin. Mexicans. And so thin-skin leapt to the keyboard and thumbed out a terrific choke-dog comment. Such energy and focus in the wee hours of the morning. Give this guy a taco salad:
Mitt Romney had his chance to beat a failed president but he choked like a dog. Now he calls me racist-but I am least racist person there is
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2016William:
You owe me one.
Your link to one of Trump's tweets forced me to read his last 5-6 tweets from just today. What a sad state of affairs. I really cannot recall anybody this thin-skinned since roughly junior high school. It makes my head spin to think Trump has a 1 in 2.5 chance of becoming President. If he gets over 40% of the vote in November I will be pretty shocked.
-
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:
My antipathy toward Trump is due to his boorish behavior. The man is not fully civilized. He is a cultural and ethical barbarian. I knew several polite people who are politically similar to Trump. They do not bother me at all. To some extent I even agree with them on some political issues. Politics is not the thing with me. I am Old Fashioned. I was brought up with good manners and I expect good manners from other people.
Baal: I agree wholeheartedly.
The man is 70 years old, but he still acts like this.
If my 15 year old daughter acted like that I would be mortified.
-
On 5/27/2016 at 8:55 AM, Brant Gaede said:
You're deluded.
--Brant
it's unlimited
Perhaps I was rationalizing, in a limited way, about human nature to make myself feel better.
-
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Jon,
I admit, this thought beguiles me--it appeals to the wrong side of me maybe (seeing how I want to focus on making stuff), but man do I enjoy the thought.
Michael
I know this is the Trump humor thread, but I find the fact that the Republican weenies who are not supporting Trump--after having signed a pledge that they would when it was to their advantage to pledge such support--are the worst kind of hypocrites, twice over. First, for signing the pledge in the first place. Second, for not renouncing the pledge while they were still in the game, i.e., when it could have actually affected them. Anybody can be an anti Trump hero now, when they are no longer on the ballots. This doesn't apply to Romney, of course, as he didn't run.
As to Jon's point about laying awake in bed at night, not a chance. Sadly, you are giving these guys way too much credit for having scruples. The power of the human mind to rationalize when under pressure is almost unlimited.
France Mowed Down
in Objectivist Living Room
Posted
100% correct on all fronts. Well said.