War Brutality (Warning Disturbing photographs)

[Summer]

Thank you especially to Daunce Lynam and Joel, who I recall as "Greyhawk." I wondered where you had wandered off to.

I don't intend on being active in this forum, but to Daunce - http://www.solitarytriumph.wordpress.com

The stories posted on OO are my rough drafts. If you are interested in the final works, they turn up there. ^

Furthermore, what individualists would hold me to an age? Corrupt laws are corrupt.

Good premises and be well,

Summer

Edited April 7, 2011 by Summer

[9thdoctor]

Here’s someone rebutting the Rolling Stone article. His main argument has to do with the size of the brigade relative to the number of bad apples.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/calling-bullshit-on-rolling-stone.htm

He doesn't manage to blunt the impact of the article.

Furthermore, what individualists would hold me to an age? Corrupt laws are corrupt.

No offense intended, just being funny. Maybe you can work in an unjust application of "strict liability" within your fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29

[Brant Gaede]

Here's someone rebutting the Rolling Stone article. His main argument has to do with the size of the brigade relative to the number of bad apples.

http://www.michaelyo...lling-stone.htm

He doesn't manage to blunt the impact of the article.

Mei Lai wasn't vitiated because of the millions of Americans who had rotated through Vietnam. I was very sensitive during my year in the Mekong Delta as a medic on a Special Forces A-Team (1966-67) to how easily it was to accumulate gratuitous collateral damage to the civilian population, especially because we in SF were generally very close to them. I ran medical patrols and was charged with psychological operations responsibilities as a Sp4 then Buck Sergeant ordinarily those of an officer. Once two army Mohawks (twin-prop air to ground) flew in, I don't know why, but these guys went flying locally and flew over a friendly village and asked the Vietnamese, nominally in charge of the area but incompetent--only their artillery was competent (it was superb)--if it was okay to open fire. Getting permission, they strafed it and blew up a pig.

There were some thugs and murderers in SF back then, I ran into a few, but mostly SF personnel were level-headed senior NCOs. I have no idea how those shit-heads in Afghanistan got to wear American military uniforms. But when this shit happens it's invariably a breakdown in command responsibility.

--Brant

I think about a million Vietnamese civilians were killed during The American War and 2-3 million Cambodians were murdered by the French-Marxist Cambodian communists subsequent to U.S. withdrawal from SE Asia.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Summer]

Maybe you can work in an unjust application of "strict liability" within your fiction.

It is precisely because it is seen as an "unjust application" that I do not frequent this forum.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Summer,

I don't speak for Dennis, but I think he was making a quip, not an endorsement of a restriction.

Don't frequent here if that is your will, but it would be a shame if you base such decisions on quips.

At any rate, when I get a moment or two, I will take a look at your stuff.

I'm intrigued by the buzz.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Maybe you can work in an unjust application of "strict liability" within your fiction.

It is precisely because it is seen as an "unjust application" that I do not frequent this forum.

What the?? Precisely what? What’s the “it” in your sentence?

It kills a joke to have to explain it, but here goes: Statutory rape is a Strict Liability offense, meaning it doesn’t matter that you thought she was of age, or if you have video of the young lady showing you her (fake) ID saying she’s over eighteen, or if she says it right into the camera right before you do your thing. Ignorance is no excuse, lack of intent to commit a criminal act is no excuse, the fact you were duped is no excuse. Sounds like a formula for injustice, right? And for blackmail. This is from the link I provided:

In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. Frequently, this applies to all sex offenses.

Wikipedia

So, let’s imagine a little Rand rewrite. Instead of Dominique, Roark meets Lillian in the valley. She’s got the look, and she’s got her lines down, she says everything Dominique says in the book. But, she’s 17 going on 25. After the seduction (er, rape) scene she goes to the cops as planned, Roark shows them the engraved invitation (assume in this case there’s a literal one) by way of defense, then Lillian pulls out her trump card: her birth certificate. No courtroom speech can make a difference against a Strict Liability offense, so Roark spends some quality years in jail, can’t get an architect’s license thereafter, and so on, evil wins.

[Summer]

You don't understand at all. I got your joke. My reference was to your implication that I am too serious.

To be truthful, I have multiple oppositions which have nothing to do with you, as an individual, Ninth Doctor (or that I won't assume have anything to do with you. I am not going to follow your posts to determine your particular character). I did not mean to "call you out." This was more situation to principle.

[caroljane]

You don't understand at all. I got your joke. My reference was to your implication that I am too serious.

To be truthful, I have multiple oppositions which have nothing to do with you, as an individual, Ninth Doctor (or that I won't assume have anything to do with you. I am not going to follow your posts to determine your particular character). I did not mean to "call you out." This was more situation to principle.

As someone who has expressed admiration for the striking originality of your writing, I am asking you what you mean by "situation to principle". I am not an Objectivist but admire the way Ayn Rand expressed her philosophy in ways any ordinary reader could understand.

Please explain.

Edited April 10, 2011 by daunce lynam

[9thdoctor]

You don't understand at all. I got your joke. My reference was to your implication that I am too serious.

I don’t see where I implied that. If anything, I might understand if you felt I belittled you by linking to your picture and saying you were cute. That might sound dumb but I've known women who were both attractive and brainy, who read into such compliments the implication that they were airheads.

As someone who has expressed admiration for the striking originality of your writing, I am asking you what you mean by "situation to principle". I am not an Objectivist but admire the way Ayn Rand expressed her philosophy in ways any ordinary reader could understand.

I think she meant “going from situation to principle”, as in moving from a particular to an abstraction.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In my experience, people who start out by saying that they go from the particular to the abstract in abrasive tones to perfect strangers usually do the contrary.

Their abstract (the principles) are signed, sealed and delivered in their heads, and their main focus is to go around judging everything by these principles (usually with emphasis on moral condemnation) without looking too hard at any further patterns of particulars.

I don't know if this is the case with this young woman, but the signs are there (i.e., saying more than once that she will not do this or that, and that she will not look at this or that, etc.).

I'm reminded of a scene from Hanta Yo! by Ayn Rand's friend, Ruth Beebe Hill. (I paraphrase, of course, since I am going from memory.)

A young Indian was out in the woods with an elder, who pointed to a track and asked him what it was. The youngster sad, "Well, it's not a rabbit, and it's not a squirrel... and let's see, it's not a deer, and it's not a..." The old man cut him off. "I didn't ask you what it was not. I asked you what it was. Do not waste your mind on what is not."

There you go, for what it's worth...

We'll just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, I'll try to look at her writing tomorrow. (I'm so behind in everything, especially my own reading and writing, it's not funny, but I'm curious.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

A young Indian was out in the woods with an elder, who pointed to a track and asked him what it was. The youngster sad, "Well, it's not a rabbit, and it's not a squirrel... and let's see, it's not a deer, and it's not a..." The old man cut him off. "I didn't ask you what it was not. I asked you what it was. Do not waste your mind on what is not."

The negative result is the only way of getting rid of bad theories and hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is busted, flush it down the pipe.

Science is not based on certainty but on conformity to evidence. The surest thing in science is the refutation of a bad hypothesis.

Bob Kolker

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Testing an hypothesis is not the point of the story.

The point is if you use your mind only to look for things that are not when you are making a basic identification, you will not use it for identifying things that are.

The young Indian was not testing any hypothesis. He was being taught to identify an animal from its track. (In the original story, he went on much longer than what I presented.)

It is true that creators need to see things that are not in their minds before creating them, but they are creating, not identifying.

Imagine being out in the woods yourself and an animal is approaching, and you start saying, "Well, it is not a bird, it is not a reptile, it is not..." and so on until the wildcat jumps on you.

Anyway, how on earth do you refute an hypothesis without first identifying something that exists that you use to refute it? By spending a lot of time running through standards that are not applicable?

Excessive negativity is a horrible mental habit, a huge waste of time and effort, and emotionally, it's bad for you.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

In my experience, people who start out by saying that they go from the particular to the abstract in abrasive tones to perfect strangers usually do the contrary.

Their abstract (the principles) are signed, sealed and delivered in their heads, and their main focus is to go around judging everything by these principles (usually with emphasis on moral condemnation) without looking too hard at any further patterns of particulars.

I don't know if this is the case with this young woman, but the signs are there (i.e., saying more than once that she will not do this or that, and that she will not look at this or that, etc.).

There is one “particular” that is certain: she doesn’t like OL, and she prefers OO. Her "signature" says it clearly enough. Has she drunk the ARIan Kool-Aid? Probably. Will it wear off in time? Again, probably. I’d rather not bait her into issuing denunciations she’ll be embarrassed by later. In her exchanges with me I have to say her writing borders on the incoherent.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Testing an hypothesis is not the point of the story.

The point is if you use your mind only to look for things that are not when you are making a basic identification, you will not use it for identifying things that are.

Excessive negativity is a horrible mental habit, a huge waste of time and effort, and emotionally, it's bad for you.

Michael

Not so. If x or y or w or z = true then not x and not y tells you w or z is true.

Knowing what is false simplifies finding what is true.

that is not bad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

So, does that mean you claim you can know what does not exist \without knowing anything at all exists first?

How do you know it?

Even your beloved x, y and z have to exist as symbols, and you have to exist, for starters.

But let's have some fun. Let's do Bob.

Bob is not an elephant.

Bob is not a rock.

Bob is not a planet from another galaxy.

Bob is not the color red.

Bob is not an equation.

Bob is not an automobile.

Bob is not a book.

Bob is not a whale.

Bob is not a raindrop.

Bob is not a werewolf.

Bob is not a cartoon.

Bob is not an apple.

Bob is not goose-grease.

Bob is not kryptonite.

Something tells me I can do this all day and never arrive at what Bob is.

Maybe your mileage differs?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

So, does that mean you claim you can know what does not exist \without knowing anything at all exists first?

How do you know it?

Even your beloved x, y and z have to exist as symbols, and you have to exist, for starters.

But let's have some fun. Let's do Bob.

Bob is not an elephant.

Bob is not a rock.

Bob is not a planet from another galaxy.

Bob is not the color red.

Bob is not an equation.

Bob is not an automobile.

Bob is not a book.

Bob is not a whale.

Bob is not a raindrop.

Bob is not a werewolf.

Bob is not a cartoon.

Bob is not an apple.

Bob is not goose-grease.

Bob is not kryptonite.

Something tells me I can do this all day and never arrive at what Bob is.

Maybe your mileage differs?

Michael

If you set up your disjunctions more efficiently you would eliminate a lot of stuff quicker and get down to the short list.

But, you are not a logician.

I am.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

By "disjunctions," do you mean comparison with stuff that exists and you know it?

You're proving my point.

Michael

[william.scherk]

A young Indian was out in the woods with an elder, who pointed to a track and asked him what it was. The youngster sad, "Well, it's not a rabbit, and it's not a squirrel... and let's see, it's not a deer, and it's not a..." The old man cut him off. "I didn't ask you what it was not. I asked you what it was. Do not waste your mind on what is not."

The youngster in the paraphrase from Hanta Yo! would have done better to keep his reasoning quiet, and silently rattle through his heuristic until he arrived at a best guess. That way the crabby elder could have got the answer he was looking for.

What is this?

[caroljane]

A young Indian was out in the woods with an elder, who pointed to a track and asked him what it was. The youngster sad, "Well, it's not a rabbit, and it's not a squirrel... and let's see, it's not a deer, and it's not a..." The old man cut him off. "I didn't ask you what it was not. I asked you what it was. Do not waste your mind on what is not."

The youngster in the paraphrase from Hanta Yo! would have done better to keep his reasoning quiet, and silently rattle through his heuristic until he arrived at a best guess. That way the crabby elder could have got the answer he was looking for.

What is this?

Looks like an aerial of the lawn after the Family Picnic.

[Selene]

Carol:

You are sooooo bad!

Adam

Post Script: Paging Ms. West

Click Here to Hear His call (mp3 audio)

[caroljane]

Carol:

You are sooooo bad!

Adam

Post Script: Paging Ms. West

Click Here to Hear His call (mp3 audio)

Adam, given the context, I can assure you that the Call of the Loon would have been more appropriate audio.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I agree so long as you are presupposing that the Young Indian was actually reasoning and not playing a show-off game.

I don't presuppose that, though, and I don't believe that was Hill's intention in writing the scene.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

By free association:

[caroljane]

By free association:

Entrancing, beautiful, timeless. Thank you ND and Attenborough.

Some images of the hunters could have come straight from a World Cup final.

Did you like Quest for Fire? I wish they would make tons of sequels to that.

[9thdoctor]

Did you like Quest for Fire? I wish they would make tons of sequels to that.

The one with Ron Perlman from the early 80's? I haven't seen that in ages, I just remember the scene with the people up a tree with lions, or something else of the man-eating class, waiting them out below. And the cannibalism. Sequels? The Clan of the Cave Bear movie may have killed that, too bad, it was a good book. BTW, Jean Auel has just put out another in the series.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Ninth Doctor