Wolf DeVoon

Rubbish. Let's not pretend the facts are in doubt or argumentative.

Magic thinking with guaranteed college admission and employment quotas

Young people are indestructible, unless they go to war, historically as troops, or in the modern context gangbangers.

Living things are moving targets, not "existent" in the sense that a pound of lead is all lead, a quart of mercury is all mercury. Brant implied the problem of error and moral turpitude. Volitional beings have fatal outcomes accordingly, typically by cowardice or heroism, but some times as innocent bystanders, too young to have a moral sphere worth talking about, collateral damage. Existents do not blink out of existence. Many men can die, or lead unremarkable, meaningless lives, by 'man' the concept cannot die, and for that reason we need to discuss the essential defining characteristics of human life ('man'). Item One: mortal. Item 2: adults are capable of rational thought. Item 3. capable of deflecting the burden of thought, denying evidence. Genus: animal.

I'm sorry I was blunt. The notion that a child is born with an "essence" is a crap proposition that misdirects and abuses the necessary, exact meaning of essential and defining characteristics, which is an issue of organized thought. Has nothing to do with fate or personal constitution at birth or later in life. I certify that people change so profoundly that it's plain mysticism to assert an eternal "essence" of personhood, akin to the Calvinist folly of the elect and the contradiction in terms of "life after death." Don't go there.

rubbish

This plays out in common law crime and defenses thereto, the reasonable man test, and in some cases strict liability for stuff you should know or take care to know, like tax law. Volition more than smuts is the affinity for political parties (eek!) religion (eek!) and hard cider (yay!)

I think I said something like that in 1984, lemme look...

I give up. Makes Edison and Carnegie hapless clowns of elbow grease, Hugo and Shakespeare exponents of dumb luck.

The automobile engine size and driver stupidity metaphors are lame. Let's stick to native reasoning talent, which is IQ. I am in the enviable position of being both stupid and immoral, so I assert with authority that most people are brighter and more rational, evidenced by law-abiding happy home life and successful careers.

Energy Transfer is primarily a gas pipeline company. Crude oil production pipelines are in GOM, Texas Eagle Ford and Permian, a trickle from Alberta, Oklahoma, Denver, Kansas and ND, storage in Cushing. Put all of that together, about half of our supply. The other half is California refined in California, supertanker shipping (Alaska and foreign), barge and rail. Of the 2 million miles of pipeline in the U.S., only 4% is crude or refined products like gasoline and diesel. 96% natural gas, ethane, condensate. I feel distinctly stupid talking about this. I've changed my mind, the New York Times is all you gots to read.

It's a pipeline company, Bob. Jeez. Wake up.

sell

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-04/gasoline-prices-tumble-refiners-resume-operations

All Gulf refineries are in good working order, restarting. Ports are reopening. Relax. And for heavens sake, don't rely on UT academics.

Please don't be a putz. About 20% of capacity offline. https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/newyork/oil-factbox-texas-refineries-pipelines-ports-21824122 PADD1 (look it up) is supplied from North Dakota, Canada, and Brent traffic, in addition to pipelines from the Gulf Coast, worldwide glut of supply.

Completely idiotic to think the New York Times is a credible source. Platts is the go-to authority, with Argus, Rigzone, and Offshore also-rans.

You are always clear, no problem understanding you. We simply disagree. Meeting someone in person, on film or tape, in photos, literature, recordings, or properly researched biography reveals everything about that person as an individual -- not a hell of a lot different from others of that time, ethnicity, and career path.

Baffled again. I'll omit *you must deduce* because it contradicts *nobody knows* -- neither of which makes any sense to me. I'm a great believer in legal evidence, documents, scholarship, objective assessment, dismissal of the fantastic and improbable, no matter who claimed what was done or attempted for what cockamamie purpose, seldom better than a human dust mote blown by magic thinking, flattering propaganda, or conventional wisdom. I don't doubt that there are many, many individuals whose achievements and courage are greater than mine, for instance, and I seldom fail to acknowledge the situation as true, factual, and objectively measurable. I can also understand a difference of opinion. That doesn't justify tall tales.

I didn't understand this. What does reason have to do with "hatred" (I continue to disbelieve there is such a thing).

About 25 million military deaths in WWII, per Wikipedia. Rand was a Russian, but okay, they were subhumans, all Japs and Krauts deserved to die.

Puzzles the heck out of me. My parents had five children, all boys. They devoted themselves, gave their lives, suffered for it. Not how romances begin. You can say they weren't omniscient, couldn't reasonably predict an unwanted outcome, or perhaps their shared "highest value" was a life of progressive deterioration, as their youth failed and burdens multiplied. Or maybe they just weren't good enough to pull it off and The Greatest Generation was, in fact, The Stupidest. Some millions of them came home from war beaten and broken, other millions didn't come back at all. Were the lives and loves of Germans and Russians and Britons nothing? -- cultures rich with music, literature, science -- caught in a history not of their making or choosing. It's good that Ayn Rand wrote stories and shared ideas. Her personal life was something else.

Nope. We misunderstand each other. The problem of art is a personal matter, having sacrificed much to practice it, such as it is, and I certify that it has not been profitable, to the extent that I aimed at something higher than trash. Ahem. Meanwhile and more importantly, self-sacrifice in romance and combat is real world stuff, with which I am likewise intimately familiar, but there are many millions who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives. Brant had the right idea. It's biology, not rationally chosen values.

I think we should let Bob off the hook. He's an empiricist, thinks the Universe is measurable, consists of phenomena to be studied, gravity and such.

We disagree. There is no virtue in romance, combat, or reputational risk. Each flies in the face of common sense, risks one's life and too often takes it. I was very much affected by Bob Fosse's All That Jazz, available on Netflix. Art kills. If you have children, perhaps you know what I meant about romance or could guess what it implies for women in particular. The pages of history are strewn with valiant sacrifice for no good reason apart from a fighting madness that does not happen in training or as a result of successful propaganda. I read Kelley as a pragmatist who risked nothing and won nothing except wertfrei sexuality.