Strictlylogical

Just as there are armchair scientists and armchair philosophers so too ... there are armchair Objectivists.

They do not take Objectivism seriously, they don't really take Atlas Shrugged seriously.

They profess understanding and belief, they speak and espouse principles, syllogisms, ... identifications... but they err in identifying important truths in AS and application of those truths to reality at large.

AS is oft labelled science fiction and rightly so, as it takes liberties identifying certain physical truths or falsehoods about sound... and how it could be harnessed as a weapon... and liberties identifying certain physical truths and falsehoods about the atmosphere and what energies in what amounts could be extracted therefrom.  All Objectivists are able to suspend disbelief of these fanciful plot devices to enjoy and obtain the important substance, including identification of moral and political truths, truths about the nature of Man and Man's mind.  Some however, some of the armchair variety, choose also to suspend their belief... ignore.. blank out and evade other truths in AS.  The inconvenient truths about the nature of vice, and corruption, of how humans following statist, and collectivist ideas and ideals behave... how utterly corrupt markets and governments can (as they have throughout history) become.. and the utter villainy of many in places of power, of many entrusted with power by others.

As comfortable as they are in their chairs, the armchair Objectivist squirms at and dismisses the corruption and treachery of industry and government at the highest levels as quickly as if not quicker than they wave away a machine that takes energy from the atmosphere... after all such things are incredibly implausible... one being pie in the sky and the other an uncomfortable conspiracy theory.

What the armchair Objectivist misses, is the flip side of the coin, the other edge of the sword's lesson, that the discovery of the morality of rationality and selfishness is a light in the contrasting darkness of collectivism, corruption, petty power mongering, and authoritarianism which tendencies and  personalities always and continually walk with society.

Today is NO exception to this truth AS fully explores.

We have no reason not to take AS seriously, and wave away ONLY the science fiction, as the rest: philosophy, principle, morality, human nature... all of it... is a wide integration which constitutes truth and a warning we would be wise to heed.

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Michael wrote: If Trump supporters were trying to overthrow the government with a violent revolution, say take over government buildings and hold the politicians hostage, they must be the stupidest people in history.

They showed up without guns.

How does one do a violent revolution without weapons? end quote

I certainly agree that the riot / violence / invasion of the Capitol was spontaneous for the most part. But I was also thinking about the term “true believer.” I don’t push ideas without evidence. Nor would I want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. I was thinking about the Trump troubles in Georgia. Wouldn’t this be the perfect time for him, and all those supporters being charged, to come forward with some massive evidence of election fraud?” Where is it? In the Wikipedia quote below, it only addresses “left wing” believers. Peter  

Notes from Wikipedia on Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”: Hoffer argues that mass movements such as Fascism and Communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and Communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either.

From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Choosing One's Own Beliefs Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:11:59 GMT Ellen Moore wrote: "Your present thinking and actions will reduce to the sum integration of your choices since birth." Jens Hube wrote questioning Ellen Moore's statement: "Where did the free will go?"

Though Jens was asking a direct question of Ellen, he was writing to Atlantis and not offlist, and because Kate has already responded, I will throw in a few thoughts too. By this statement, Ellen is not inferring that past thinking CAN be changed, or that present thinking is NOT amendable to volitional choice, or that future thinking, for any human is determined. She would not pose and post a syllogism such as this, divorced from reality. She is speaking about the total CONTEXT of a person's psycho-epistemology.

As Kate responded, "She's talking about the causality that follows from free choices: choices constrain one's future context similarly to deterministic influences . . . ."

A person's ability to think straight in the present, will be affected by such past thinking habits as shown in these questions: Are a person's basic premises correct? Is the knowledge (or assumptions) a person has gained, true or false?  Has a person's subconscious been programmed to respond with the correct automatized actions, and correct emotional responses for rational living? So, at the point at which Ellen is speaking (the present) a person can have as a part of their total mental package, the logical faculties, and the volition to do the right thing.

Does this mean that a person cannot overcome past bad thinking? No. Even a person with mixed rationality can still prevail. It will just require more effort, and the desire to "snap out of it!" Peter Taylor

From Objectivism and Rage by Barbara Branden delivered in 2006 at The Atlas Society summer conference: . . . I have seen so many instances in which newcomers to Objectivism become rigid, fearful true believers in order to escape censure—or else they are driven away to lick their wounds in hurt and bewilderment. And sadly, often the victims in their turn become victimizers—spewing the poison that sickened them onto the next young Objectivist they encounter, having learned to treat even the most polite and reasoned disagreements with contempt and insult and morally-outraged fury . . . .

"Insurrection" - is to - Jan 6

as

"Attempted Murder" - is to - trespassing, walking up to a person in weird clothes, waving a flag, and making them feel bad

6 hours ago, Peter said:

From Economist / YouGov: Trump 52, DeSantis 16, Ramaswamy  6, Haley 4 . . .   From Rasmussen Reports: President Biden Job Approval Approve 42, Disapprove 55.  From Economist / YouGov: General election, Biden 43, Trump 44.

In spite of missing the debate, no other Republican comes as close to beating Biden as Trump. Hoorah! In the last two days, I have received approximately ten appeals for money from the Trump campaign. Maybe . . . soon. 

If I were an anthropologist, I might think a free population of very unique and varied people would vote in a twisty winding track over the years swinging toward and away form various specific policies as the moment required like the changing weather.  I also might think a set of parties would form around those various policies, live and die, with changing seasons.  In such an organic system I would expect landslides, swings in support, transformation of parties etc, and would treat NEAR EQUAL SUPPORT for TWO PARTIES as a rare anomaly.

THAT modern America seems to follow a hair splitting pattern, with elections won ... almost like clockwork.. by one party (after one or two terms) and then by the other and then again by the one... makes me wonder... WHEN did such a pattern appear and does it reflect the reality of the people? 

4 hours ago, Marc said:

Honourary King, not just President.

King President Trump.

And a hell of a chess player too!

Please explain what you really mean...

misunderstanding is VERY possible when you use terms like "King".

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This lady is talking about war.

Did you notice that she does not look like white privilege?

 

The backlash against the tyrannical government is here and it's going to grow.

Michael

I see here, in contrast to so many others,

someone who knows and understands...

and much more markedly in contrast,

someone who is NOT a coward.

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Marc? If he had won two terms, he can't run for a third term . . . in a row. Come south of the border and not just in your imagination, read our constitution . . .  and pay attention.   

edit. Marc, I'm sorry if I seemed snippy. I shouldn't "snipe" at People on my side . . . or metaphorically, the right side, or the Canadian free side. You are OK to me. And that is better than it might sound. 

 

Look lively Peter... stay sharp.

Marc said nothing about serving three terms.  He is making an astute (albeit in some circles debatable) observation based on essentials.  Observe, an election IS an act "BY the people" to choose its government, not the act of conducting a survey by their overlords to keep the peace and keep up appearances.  The casting of votes by citizens authorized to do so IS the election and the winner and loser of that are IN those votes, the ACT of VOTING  BY THE PEOPLE is the ACT of CHOOSING (i.e. ELECTING).

The "facts" (as per Marc) are that the D won two elections, (i.e. the people CHOSE him twice), and is running for a third.

It matters not that a number of powerful and influential people were able to fabricate a situation which led half the nation (or maybe less?.. or maybe more) to believe otherwise.

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Devers RIP

I looked on Facebook today and saw a note from Chris Sciabarra that Devers Branden had passed away on July 26.

I am deeply saddened.

I only talked with her once by telephone for about 2 hours, but what a lovely, lovely soul.

Here is the text from Chris's Facebook post.

Time for grieving.

Michael

 

 

That notablog link gave me a blue screen of death.  Be careful about the link.  Trying to scan my machine for problems.

Myocardial Injury after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination 

One in 35

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sorry for being grumpy.

I reread the opening post and it irritated the piss out of me.

I am fine with disagreement.

People who know me know I am all for disagreement. That's how you hone ideas and work them out. And some people, including me, take time to come around to seeing reality contrary to was believed before when a perception of reality is strong and longstanding.

I get it and I'm very patient with this. 

Also, I've been that way for years.

 

But I am no longer fine with pissy sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit and peer pressure when the world is going to hell and that bullshit is part of the reason it is. Why is it part of the reason? Because people who are that way don't even see it. 

Pure gnosticism. Reality doesn't matter to them. Only their mental replacement for reality matters to them.

 

What is the difference between discussion of thorny issues and sanction of the victim?

Great question.

We all have to define this difference for ourselves one day.

I finally defined mine. 

Michael

No apologies necessary.

I would ask: 

If based on your perceptual apparatus and including valid general premises, you have heard and seen enough to make a wide integration based on them are you not valid to take it as a working conclusion? Indeed, if there is some evidence (possibly circumstantial) then you have every right to say something is possible... more evidence... then plausible, more then likely, then more likely than not likely..etc., no?

The error with those who have swallowed the term "conspiracy theory" as it was fed to them (I can't recall who coined it first but ... it was not unmotivated) is that they focus on the particular subject matter or conclusion of the wide integration from percepts, i.e. WHAT  has been concluded from them, and raised that above the percepts and the process... to the point that in and of itself it stands as evidence for or against that conclusion.

[The propaganda narrative word twisting machine has succeeded in creating a shield for any group or association of people to use against suspicion of their wrongdoing... "what us conspiring? that just proves you're nuts"]

The fallacious argument goes something like this:

Sure, perceptual evidence and wide integrations are fine, but if they give rise to a suspicion that people are conspiring actively or passively or acting in concert due to incentive structures (or in any other way) that CONCLUSION itself brings into question the wide body of evidence and your process in bringing it all together.

Here they are not saying they have other evidence to rebut your conclusion, they make the bald assertion that any conclusion which theorizes a conspiracy is invalid.

Implicitly, hell, explicitly, this requires the bald assertion that people never conspire, which is patently and laughably false.

Nothing is closer to "begging the question", rationalizing a preheld unmovable conclusion, dogma, or as you say pure gnosticism, than the idea that BECAUSE you have arrived at a particular kind of conclusion THAT invalidates it.

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The New Anti-Human Trafficking Movies

I will add more details to this thread later.

For now, let's just say that Jim Caviezel starred in an anti-human-trafficking movie that opened in the theaters last weekend and got better box-office returns (over $40 million for the weekend) than the latest Indiana Jones movie did. The movie is called "The Sound of Freedom." The marketing caption is: "America's children are not for sale."

But there's more. This is merely the warm-up act for Mel Gibson's new production about rampant pedophilia in Hollywood and in the world.

The success of "The Sound of Freedom" means there will be a slew of these movies.

A change is coming and I am glad to see it.

 

Here's a little teaser about what runs these men (and others like them) deep in their souls. You don't have to be a Christian to admire this.

I know I do. I admire it enormously. I admire the people involved.

Michael

Hehe you may have made a wee typo with the title of the thread.

An "Anti-Human-Trafficking Movie" is a movie which is anti or contra [Human-Trafficking]

But an "Anti-Human   Trafficking Movie"    could be a movie about trafficking which is antihuman!!

I do love the content of your post!

Just now, Strictlylogical said:

BDTP - Movies were slowly and tentatively getting "progressive", and globalism and socialism were progressing slowly and tentatively.

ADTP - Within a few short years movies have gone batshit crazy...  and the world, and practically everything in it (in the public sphere), has gone batshit crazy.

 

DT and the DTP kicked the bees' nest.

 

 

...

BDTP - Before Donald Trump Presidency

ADTP - After Donald Trump Presidency  

Whether you like the orange man or not, the DTP is literally a turning point in history, and that's no mistake.

BDTP - Movies were slowly and tentatively getting "progressive", and globalism and socialism were progressing slowly and tentatively.

ADTP - Within a few short years movies have gone batshit crazy...  and the world, and practically everything in it (in the public sphere), has gone batshit crazy.

DT and the DTP kicked the bees' nest.

...

BDTP - Before Donald Trump Presidency

ADTP - After Donald Trump Presidency  

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Oh God...

People have been posting negative Amazon reviews on the page of the game controller used in the destroyed sub saying it isn't reliable.

There are screenshots of more such reviews in that thread.

Amazon is taking them down, though.

I went to that page and I am late to the party. You can hardly get any June reviews in the filter.

 

Tasteless, but it is funny if you like dark humor.

(Dayamm! I don't know whether to put a smiley or not...)

Michael

Some if not most of it may be due to the ever popular envy of billionaires harbored by those who need to blame their unhappiness on others' successes.

Does anyone here have DailyWire+? 

Just wondering how much more of that video exists.

7 hours ago, Peter said:

I am still dwelling on the idea that Russia is evil for invading Ukraine, and correspondingly, Ukraine is evil for being invaded.

What IS "Russia"?   What IS "Ukraine"? A geographic region?  A culture?    A society?  A people?  Each and every person? Certain people in control or under control?

Who here is attributing "evil" to that which you identify AS "Ukraine" or "Russia"?  Is it a valid attribution given your identifications?

Certainly there are individuals in this complicated context whose specific actions are evil, but your statement, whether genuine, rhetorical, Socratic, or Sarcastic,  "Russia is evil for invading Ukraine, and correspondingly, Ukraine is evil for being invaded" is irrational, and NOT for the reason you assume or intended.

21 hours ago, deanwins said:

Re: can bitcoin be hacked?

Bitcoin technology is a ledger. Transfer/spending of ammounts requires a public key digital signature. People determine which history of the ledger to use based on which had the most work to build (proof of work) using brute force hash cracking.

If someone found a vulnerability in the digital signatures, people can move their amounts into a different public key algorithm.

People have already found minor (inconsequential) optimizations to improve the efficiency of the brute force hash cracking.  If someone found a way to break (solve in 1 try) the hash in use (sha256) for Proof of Work, then Bitcoin developers (and users) would have to switch the software to use a new hashing algorithm that doesn't have the vulnerability.

Theres a pretty huge economic incentive for people to break these things.  Theres actually a controversy back when an upgrade to Bitcoin's transaction signature storage (SegWit) was trying to be released by developers. The primary Bitcoin mining company was trying to deny the upgrade because: we suspect they were taking advantage of a little undocumented optimization in finding PoW hash solutions that SegWit would foil.

If you were able to break Bitcoin's public key crypto or block PoW hashing algorithms... you could get rich quick spending early generated bitcoins or creating new blocks to get the block rewards.  Its pretty dang hard math protecting it though... afaik theres only brute force.  Some people claim "quantum" computers can break Bitcoin's current public key crypto, which would be a problem for people who received coins from different transactions at the same address.  I initally use the definition "bullshit" when I read the word "quantum", as this is the most commonly used meaning of the word.

User's computers can be hacked though.  A specialized keylogger trojan can steal coins from your wallet.  Its been done on web browser and phone wallets.  The solution to that is hardware and cold storage wallets.  These are wallets that are disconnected from the internet, and have to be physically tampered with in person to be able to install a trojan.

I think a puzzle piece just snapped in place into why Governments are dumping so much funding into Quantum Computers which are as of yet unproven in terms of their general usefulness….

the arms race is between freedom or domination.

AI will one day be the new Wizard of Oz,  and behind the contraption will be the men pulling the levers (although not so well intentioned or good natured as that man from the movie).. it will be the new God (and a new "The Science") making pronouncements for the faithless plebs and the self-respecting "believers in science" to follow.

That path, the virtue signalled "right", God-given, absolute and correct set of choices, will be the yellow brick freeway... the key to everything from our new God who will save us from all the multiplying crises. 

For now, the bricks are being laid by many of our mortal Utopian and Malthusian types.. a mere "road" to join up with the freeway once that begins.

I'd like anyone who sees the bricks being laid, perhaps manmade crises, both fictional (false flag), and ecoterrorist based (wildfire arson? bombings?) as well as new virtue signalling or movements etc, (celebrity or corporation based) to feel free to identify them here.   

As mentioned in other posts, the predator class is really a collection of groups all vying cooperatively and competitively for power.  I want to focus on that part which consists of Utopians and Malthusians... tyrants of a socialist, environmentalist bent, who are in it, not for personal gain, but for some Malthusian, Imagined Crisis driven vision, which eschews freedom and individual rights for some hippy kumbaya commune... and are willing to achieve it at any cost... any amount of suffering, starvation and death no matter how much.

My First Brick:

The WHO its supporters of a certain type, and it's slow morphing into a World Crises Organization: We have seen global power foisted on western nations with crises as the justification, loss of sovereignty which means loss of individual rights in those nations. Soon in addition to pandemic lockdowns and handing over sovereignty to the WHO because "disease"... there will be a kind of  World ECO Organization (or straight up World Crises Organization) which will enforce the same kinds of tyranny in the name of dealing with other crises and legitimized by the handing over of sovereignty by nations.... regardless of whether the people in those nations consented or not.

Even some Dems from the past were awakened.

PS The Thing has contorted the word “conspiracy” from a word referring to evil coordinated conduct to a smear word labelling the “fool” who would dare suspect such a thing from anyone…. The Thing has also preempted the term “woke” so that we  plebs could not use it to identify the real awakening … one to the unspoken coordinated behavioural conspiracy…

38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Here in America, we just don't do things that way, but I bet some will try.

It's tempting...

 

But, that whole silly climate change scam will not prevail.

We have to be aware of what they are doing. Once the silent majority people realize the idiots are serious about taking their goodies away and killing off the population to a manageable number, they will throw the bums out. 

Michael

Of course!

America has no king and needs no king.

I find it utterly baffling though, that people can become so arrogant as to think they can act like rulers over others with no consequences... the lessons of history should not be forgotten, especially by would be utopians and aspiring tyrants alike.

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

He's in the Predator Class.

He'll get those things.

We won't.

Moo...

 

Michael

Hmmm looks like someone forgot about the French Revolution.

How will King Charles  react to 

-not being able to fly

-having to build with clay

-not being able to buy shipped goods or ship goods?

I cane tell if Steve be smilin' er smirkin'...

mane I hate watchin peeps be doin they mind games...

spessly without no common-taytuh doin a play-by-play!

21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Steve Bannon is going to embrace the aliens story.

He openly said so at the end of the video below.

He talks to Congressman Tim Burchett about it.

Rep Tim Burchett: Nations Engaged in a Top-Secret Arms Race to 'Reverse-Engineer' Alien Technology

Rep Tim Burchett: Nations Engaged in a Top-Secret Arms Race to 'Reverse-Engineer' Alien Technology

RUMBLE.COM

---

Rep Tim Burchett: Nations Engaged in a Top-Secret Arms Race to 'Reverse-Engineer' Alien Technology

Steve asked the Congressman if this is serious, or if it is another misdirection play and he said it is serious.

The metaphor he used is that it would be the equivalent of dropping a Harley Davison on the Mayflower ship at the beginning of the country. He said there are things the government has that are beyond our capacity to understand at the present.

And this is why there is an arms race by other nations to get at it and try to reverse engineer it.

Let's see...

 

Michael

It's a play.... the ultimate conspiracy porn... a sword for the alt-media/right to jump on... and die to the ridicule of all.

I hope, and pray, we are seeing a head fake... by Tucker, Bannon, and Alex... to make them think the bait has been taken... what the plan is from there ...

as you say, we'll see. 

Trump IS doing the right thing right now.

Not to take anything away from Mr. Jones' thunder,

I've been musing about Tucker...

Perhaps he is testing Twitter and Musk... and the new CEO.

[Edit: and also tried his darndest to get the view numbers through the roof... which he did.]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Absolutely correct.

The main problem for a newcomer currency is adherence. Without an owner, they would need some kind of years-long planning the way Satoshi Nakamoto did.

Most people who think along these lines start working on it, then reach a point where they see the the potential for gobs of moolah and, although they say they will make it decentralized, they make another shitcoin.

Greed is a magnificent emotion to behold in action.

 

Michael

We don't want no shitcoin.

Has anyone made any estimates as to whether or when Bitcoin could be hacked or compromised?  How long term is it really ?