Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, moralist said:

I'm reading Trumps book, The Art of the Deal, and it's a cross between Sun Tzu's The art of War and Atlas Shrugged.

Greg,

That's a pretty good characterization of the ideological focuses of the book.

I like it.

 

(btw - For all: I'm back from my trip.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 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 know several polite people who are politically similar to Trump.  They do not bother me at all.

Bob,

Well, if polite manners is your priority, President Obama is very polite. He's the essence of laid-back.

How's that working for ya'?

 

I'm afraid polite does not stand a chance against the endless-war-for-profit dictatorship-by-technocrat establishment machine at this stage. A polite person against that machine would never cut through the noise of the boorish, uncivilized, culturally and ethically barbaric media run and owned by some very polite folks. (Just look at the political headlines any day at any hour for proof of the media's uncouth behavior.)

The media is the conveyer of information to the masses. And it is more like a passel of hogs than a flock of dainty cockatoos. If the hogs are squealing and that's all people can listen to, you have to squeal louder if you want to be heard.

Trump not only does that, he gets the hogs to squeal about him all the time. And man do they squeal. They squeal and squeal and squeal and grunt and snort and shriek and blubber, all the while lying their asses off.

Sooueeeeeee! Grunt grunt snort burgle burble burgle soueeeeeeeeeeee!...

 

I notice you often take their boorish, uncivilized, culturally and ethically barbaric yawp as polite civilized intelligent truth when they talk about Trump.

So if Trump beats them at their hog noise game, that's terrible. If they do the hog noises and win, that's not worth mentioning.

That's a double standard.

 

Besides, I don't want a person to use politeness as a top priority to deal with problems like the Orlando shooter. I want someone who will deal with the shooter and shut him down regardless of manners. 

And that Trump will do. Big time...

As to politeness, you don't seem to believe all the media reports (and there are many) of Trump's standard polite demeanor in meetings. Were you unable to detect that information in the media hog hollers?

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Well, if polite manners is your priority, President Obama is very polite. He's the essence of laid-back.

How's that working for ya'?

 

I'm afraid polite does not stand a chance against the endless-war-for-profit dictatorship-by-technocrat establishment machine at this stage. A polite person against that machine would never cut through the noise of the boorish, uncivilized, culturally and ethically barbaric media run and owned by some very polite folks. (Just look at the political headlines any day at any hour for proof of the media's uncouth behavior.)

The media is the conveyer of information to the masses. And it is more like a passel of hogs than a flock of dainty cockatoos. If the hogs are squealing and that's all people can listen to, you have to squeal louder if you want to be heard.

Trump not only does that, he gets the hogs to squeal about him all the time. And man do they squeal. They squeal and squeal and squeal and grunt and snort and shriek and blubber, all the while lying their asses off. Sooueeeeeee! Grunt grunt snort...  

I notice you often take their boorish, uncivilized, culturally and ethically barbaric yawp as polite civilized intelligent truth when they talk about Trump.

So if Trump beats them at their hog noise game, that's terrible. If they do the hog noises and win, that's not worth mentioning.

That's a double standard.

 

Besides, I don't want a person to use politeness as a top priority to deal with problems like the Orlando shooter. I want someone who will deal with the shooter and shut him down regardless of manners. 

And that Trump will do. Big time...

As to politeness, you don't seem to believe all the media reports (and there are many) of Trump's standard polite demeanor in meetings. Were you unable to detect that information in the media hog hollers?

 

Michael

Outward Good Manners is an external manifestation of  basic respect for the persona, time and property of other people.  Given a choice between high falutin' ethics and Good Manners  I will chose Good Manners each and every time.   I consider it a plus if a person does not humiliate other folks in public for no sufficient reason. Ditto for not insulting people in public. If one has an issue with another person can can be expressed without insult.

Trump is a master of verbal bullying.  He reminds me of the bullies I had to put up with while growing up.  Fortunately I grew thick enough skin to cope with that crap.  

If one of my children behaved  liked The Donald  I would see to it that the child was properly chastised.  I consider  him shit with an external resemblance to human form.  The man is ugly inside and not too pretty outside.  In my estimation,  Trump is a mud-person.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Given a choice between high falutin' ethics and Good Manners  I will chose Good Manners each and every time.

I prefer to fight wars with fighters who win. I'm sick of those who use good manners to manipulate people and hide their vile intentions.

What happened to you? I, for one, don't know what happened to the man who used to want to bomb women and children into glass and once wanted to establish internment camps and killing zones in the USA for enemies. (Do you remember Barbara's rebuke?)

It seems like the Orlando shooter was polite, albeit he did lightly laugh a few times...

Is that your model of good behavior?

 

It's not mine...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump's most recent statement on Facebook:

Donald J. Trump said:

STATEMENT ON AFL-CIO ENDORSEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON

Sadly with this endorsement of Hillary Clinton - who is totally owned by Wall Street - the leadership of the AFL-CIO has made clear that it no longer represents American workers. Instead they have become part of the rigged system in Washington, D.C. that benefits only the insiders.

I believe their members will be voting for me in much larger numbers than for her.

Hillary Clinton and her husband have made hundreds of millions of dollars doing favors and selling access to Wall Street, special interests and oppressive foreign regimes. As Bernie Sanders said, “Why, over her political career, has Wall Street been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?” They own Hillary Clinton and she will do whatever they tell her to.

Bernie Sanders is also 100% correct when he says that Hillary Clinton “vote[d] for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs.” Hillary supported NAFTA and she supported the trade deal with China, Vietnam, South Korea – and if elected will implement the TPP she loves so much – guaranteed.

While Secretary of State,'Hillary Clinton racked up a $1 trillion trade deficit with China – all while China was funneling a small fortune to Hillary via speaking fees paid to Bill.

On immigration, Hillary Clinton sides with Wall Street too. Bernie Sanders correctly warned that open borders “would substantially lower wages in this country,” and yet Hillary has put forward a plan that would completely open America’s borders in her first 100 days in office.

On energy, Hillary Clinton wants to shut down the coal mines, block the Keystone pipeline, and destroy millions of good union jobs through executive action.

Her massive proposed increase in taxes and regulations will also send millions of jobs overseas.

Hillary Clinton will economically destroy poor communities, African-American and Hispanic workers on trade, immigration, crime, energy, taxes, regulation and everything else.

Finally, union workers have long believed in having an open and free society. Yet Hillary takes money from regimes that support the murder of gays and the enslavement of women while pushing to bring people into America who want to do the exact same thing to our people. I only want to bring people into our country who will love and support everyone.

Hillary Clinton is the enemy of working people and is the best friend Wall Street ever had. I will fight harder for American workers than anyone ever has, and I will fight for their right to elect leaders who will do the same. I will be a president for ALL Americans.

I want to add to that, but there is nothing to add. The AFL-CIO leaders are bought and paid for by Obama. And Trump is right. The AFL-CIO members will vote for him in far greater numbers than for Hillary.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I prefer to fight wars with fighters who win. I'm sick of those who use good manners to manipulate people and hide their vile intentions.

What happened to you? I, for one, don't know what happened to the man who used to want to bomb women and children into glass and once wanted to establish internment camps and killing zones in the USA for enemies. (Do you remember Barbara's rebuke?)

It seems like the Orlando shooter was polite, albeit he did lightly laugh a few times...

Is that your model of good behavior?

 

It's not mine...

Michael

Good Manners (in may case) is not a pose or a gesture.  It is a manifestation of my concern for the persona, property, and time of others.  I wish to go through my life without inflicting unjust or unnecessary pain on others.  If I am forced to defend myself or my family I will inflict as much pain and damage is is required to do the task.  But other than that  I have not desire to inflict  physical, verbal or psychological pain on other people.  I don't like it when others do that to me, so I generally do not do it to others.

While I am at it  a word about or Prince  Barak.  I do not like him particularly.  My dislike is not based on his manners,  but the attitude he appears to exhibit. I do not think he likes the United States.  He is the spiritual offspring of (Old) Mayor Daley of Chicago and that  hateful hater Saul Alinsky.  Now I happen to like this country.  Not just because I live here.  I like the physical  thing America  is, its geography and scenery.  More important I find its people generally a decent lot.  I feel at ease with Americans (generally, although some I can do without).  I can relate to my countrymen.   I do not like an attitude which holds them in contempt.  I think Prince  Barak and many of his liberal progressive buddies  do hold America cheap and unworthy and I don't like that one bit.  But I do not find Obama's outward behavior offensive.  His offensiveness is much more subtle.  I sense he finds people like me unworthy and of no importance. Well, if so, then fuck him. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

53 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I wish to go through my life without inflicting unjust or unnecessary pain on others.  If I am forced to defend myself or my family I will inflict as much pain and damage is is required to do the task.

Bob,

You just described Trump.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

You just described Trump.

Michael

You are projecting your own image on The Donald.  He is a boorish lout. 

[Roger Bissell]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Outward Good Manners is an external manifestation of  basic respect for the persona, time and property of other people.  Given a choice between high falutin' ethics and Good Manners  I will chose Good Manners each and every time.   I consider it a plus if a person does not humiliate other folks in public for no sufficient reason. Ditto for not insulting people in public. If one has an issue with another person can can be expressed without insult.

Trump is a master of verbal bullying.  He reminds me of the bullies I had to put up with while growing up.  Fortunately I grew thick enough skin to cope with that crap.  

If one of my children behaved  liked The Donald  I would see to it that the child was properly chastised.  I consider  him shit with an external resemblance to human form.  The man is ugly inside and not too pretty outside.  In my estimation,  Trump is a mud-person.

 

 

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Good Manners (in may case) is not a pose or a gesture.  It is a manifestation of my concern for the persona, property, and time of others.  I wish to go through my life without inflicting unjust or unnecessary pain on others.  If I am forced to defend myself or my family I will inflict as much pain and damage is is required to do the task.  But other than that  I have not desire to inflict  physical, verbal or psychological pain on other people.  I don't like it when others do that to me, so I generally do not do it to others.

While I am at it  a word about or Prince  Barak.  I do not like him particularly.  My dislike is not based on his manners,  but the attitude he appears to exhibit. I do not think he likes the United States.  He is the spiritual offspring of (Old) Mayor Daley of Chicago and that  hateful hater Saul Alinsky.  Now I happen to like this country.  Not just because I live here.  I like the physical  thing America  is, its geography and scenery.  More important I find its people generally a decent lot.  I feel at ease with Americans (generally, although some I can do without).  I can relate to my countrymen.   I do not like an attitude which holds them in contempt.  I think Prince  Barak and many of his liberal progressive buddies  do hold America cheap and unworthy and I don't like that one bit.  But I do not find Obama's outward behavior offensive.  His offensiveness is much more subtle.  I sense he finds people like me unworthy and of no importance. Well, if so, then fuck him. 

 

Bob, I like both of these profiles. They sound dead-on to me. Please feel free to do more of this sort of thing! (One on Hillary would be interesting and insightful, I'm sure.)

REB

 

[Mark]

Roger,

Robert Kolker lecturing us on good manners is like Rodney King saying “Can’t we all just get along.”

Note that Kolker removed his dirty tagline (in Hebrew) before becoming a goody-goody.

 

[Roger Bissell]

31 minutes ago, Mark said:

Robert Kolker lecturing us on good manners is like Rodney King saying “Can’t we all just get along.”

Note that Kolker removed his dirty tagline (in Hebrew) before becoming a goody-goody.

 

Better late than never!

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You are projecting your own image on The Donald.

Bob,

That's funny because I was thinking that about you.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Mark said:

Note that Kolker removed his dirty tagline (in Hebrew) before becoming a goody-goody.

Mark,

I don't know what happened to the mad bomber. This goody-goody posture is definitely something new.

Maybe he had a come to Jesus moment.

   

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

On 6/16/2016 at 10:08 AM, 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. 

On the subject of men behaving badly, I agree.  On the other hand, Ive seen socially refined, intelligent, highly successful people act like animals. 

For a guy, with so much going for him, its difficult to cut him slack. The piece he did on Charles Krauthammer, acting like a spastic, is a prime example of a lack of awareness. 

There are no brakes on the Trump bandwagon. I especially like his rants on HC. Id rather he win than her. 

 

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Besides, I don't want a person to use politeness as a top priority to deal with problems like the Orlando shooter. I want someone who will deal with the shooter and shut him down regardless of manners. And that Trump will do. Big time... end quote

Amen. Back to my suggestion for a well - organized militia. Many of the people who I have described my 0ne In Ten Packing A Gun ratio think that could lead to shoot outs and chaos and would be abandoned. Maybe. Remember that in our old American west, everybody packed a gun, and the actual number of gun fights was small. And that old bromide about outlaws taking over a town was crap. It might have happened once, if I remember the debunking I saw. Outlaws who tried to take over were shot dead (multiple times) and were killed by decent citizens with rifles.

So. What if Trump calls for a citizen’s militia to battle Isis and home grown terrorism within our borders? It should be recruited at the local level by police departments. The members should be trained like you would any deputy sheriff, perhaps pushed and advertised by the NRA. It would be a good reason to vote for Trump and the ultimate defeat (or at least deflation) of international terrorism.

And of course, I know Barney Fife types could be the first to apply, but background checks, training, and the right weeding out process (with or without boy scout type badges along the way - that’s a half joke) could and MUST make a militia work.

Trump’s American Defenders? It would be great to look back in the rear view mirror of history and say, “We were so smart to stop the massacres and kill international terrorism.”

Peter

[Peter]

ARI recently wrote: That point is lost on many people today, especially the leading presidential candidates. They fail to understand the centrality of philosophic ideas in animating the jihadist cause. The last two administrations failed properly to define the nature of the Islamist movement. Look around — we’re living with the consequences of their irrational policies. Fitting within that dismal tradition, Clinton and Trump have put forward views that negate the ideological character of the enemy, and so neither has the understanding necessary to deal effectively with the mounting threat we face. end quote

What horse shit. If we are trying to educate Western Civilization to understand the philosophy of Ayn Rand and what motivates Jihadists, that is one thing, but how do WE educate radical Islamists? What is their stupid point? Should we send paper pamphlets to Iran and Syria, or pay for ads on their radio and TV? I can look at any cultist and know they are wrong and to be avoided.

The only decent point I can pull from their article is that we should use good standards of target selection when we kill the bastards to minimize the innocent loss of life, to avoid making the survivors future Jihadist in revenge.  

Peter  

[Peter]

Good manners? Civility? Bob, think of Trump like a politically minded soldier, rather than as a motivational preacher.

Aaron, what the eff are you going to do after our shift?

Shit Yaron, I’m going to a café, sit under an umbrella, and sip tea.

Me too. Halt! Who goes there?

I have business in this neighborhood.

Raise your arms, you fuck. What is that? Take your shirt off!

I will not! My name is Farah. I am just going to see my sister.

Take it off and don’t take another step. Yaron, stay where you are and keep your rifle on that dickhead.        

Commander Trump! We have an Arabic woman with something under her shirt.

You. I am the commander of this post.  What’s under your GD shirt?

Donald! It’s me, Farah. I was trying to bring my sister something for her birthday and my hands were full. It’s just a bag of rice.

Farah? I know her. She’s OK. I will check her out.

Yes, Sir.  

A soldier is not a very good politician, Ba’al. I too wish Trump were more like Ike than an NCO, but, WTF? He is what we’ve got.

Peter  

Hebrew names. Aaron high mountain, Ariel lion of God, Aya vulture, Benjamin son of my right hand, Gideon mighty warrior, Meyer giving light, Nathan gift, Yaron to shout and sing, Zane God’s grace, Zebadiah gift of the Lord.

[Mark]

48 minutes ago, Peter said:

...  we should use good standards of target selection when we kill the bastards to minimize the innocent loss of life, to avoid making the survivors future Jihadist in revenge.  

That's not the only reason, see your quote of GH Smith earlier.

I don’t know who originated it but something like the following has been making the rounds on the Internet.  This is what Trump ought to have focused on exclusively:

Instead of having a surveillance state to watch Muslims, let’s have a free country without Muslims.

And the same could be said for a wider class of people.

I’m sick of talk about military invasions.

[moralist]

19 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Given a choice between high falutin' ethics and Good Manners  I will chose Good Manners each and every time. .

Well, there you have Bob's values in a nutshell.

People can be unethical as long as they have good manners.

 

Greg

[Peter]

42 minutes ago, Mark said:

That's not the only reason, see your quote of GH Smith earlier.

I don’t know who originated it but something like the following has been making the rounds on the Internet.  This is what Trump ought to have focused on exclusively:

Instead of having a surveillance state to watch Muslims, let’s have a free country without Muslims.

And the same could be said for a wider class of people.

I’m sick of talk about military invasions.

Good points. You don't lose your rights if you are standing next to a jihadist but common sense says don't do that. As for focusing on talking points, I think The Donald tries. He gets the jist, yet his anger focuses on the wrong sub points. But he can be educated, advised, and then be a more coherent President. Where's Newt and Ted? Get them on his board of advisers.

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Donald in Dallas.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

14 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

 

Bob, I like both of these profiles. They sound dead-on to me. Please feel free to do more of this sort of thing! (One on Hillary would be interesting and insightful, I'm sure.)

REB

 

I find Hillary to be rather uninteresting.  She is about 1/16 of an inch deep. There is not enough there  for me to be even annoyed about.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli --  she is not even wrong...

[Peter]

Did you notice Newsmax spelled Dallas, Dallis? Some old letters and quotes, in contrast to Trump’s saying he doesn’t appreciate soldiers or sailors captured by the enemy.

Peter

 

Jerry Biggers wrote: Ayn Rand's position on the moral dilemma of someone being held hostage (i.e., should s/he falsely "confess" to committing acts when faced with torture, imprisonment, and other forms of coercion?) by a tyrannical government, was clearly stated in her response to "The Pueblo Incident" in 1969, when the North Korean government captured a U.S. Naval Ship, The Pueblo, and held them hostage, claiming that they were "spying."
 
What follows is an excerpt from an article entitled, "Ayn Rand on Torture," from the ARIWatch.com website:
 
First some background. In January 1968 North Korea attacked the USS Pueblo, a small and only lightly armed spy ship, in international waters. The Pueblo was no match for the Koreans’ torpedo boats and MIG fighters. The Seventh Fleet failed to come to the Pueblo’s defense, the commander quickly surrendered to save the crew, and the Koreans took all the survivors (which was all but one of the crew) prisoner. The Koreans severely beat commander and crew over the course of eleven months and forced them to confess, in writing and on film (though they made it look ridiculous), that they had invaded North Korean waters, that conditions in the U.S. were oppressive, and that the Koreans were treating them well. Eventually the U.S. government itself issued an official statement along similar lines, and retracted it after the men were consequently released.
 
There followed a military Court of Inquiry and a Congressional investigation of the incident. At the time of Ayn Rand’s article Commander Bucher was facing court-martial.
 
Were the men right to “confess?” After their release the New York Times published a letter saying that here was a “moral dilemma.” Ayn Rand disagreed, and wrote a letter of her own, which she published in “Brief Comments.” (And sent to the NYT – which never published it.) She said that Commander Bucher was a hero and should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor, and that the U.S. government is trying to make him the scapegoat:
 
“... on the grounds of an immoral and irrational military code. That code ignores the difference between a voluntary statement and a forced statement, thus endorsing the moral premise of thugs who regard torture as a legitimate method of inquiry.
 
“We recognize the difference in our criminal law – see the Supreme Court decisions which invalidate the confessions of criminals, if obtained by pressure. Yet we do not grant the same considerations to the protectors of our country when they are in the hands of savage killers.
 
“When we ascribe validity to the ‘confessions’ of men imprisoned by communist governments ... – when we do it in spite of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities practiced by such government are a matter of record – we endorse and invite the atrocities. She elaborates, then suggests the following to put an end to such extorted “confessions”:
 

“Let the U.S. government publicly order our armed forces to say, sign, admit or confess anything demanded of them when they are seized by an enemy ... . (This would not apply to divulging actual military secrets, but only to lying about political-ideological issues.) Let the government declare to the world that we will not accept as true, valid or meaningful any statement extorted by force, i.e., any statement made by an American prisoner in a foreign country – and that all such statements are repudiated in advance, in his name, by his government.
 
“This would re-establish the moral meaning of freedom and of truth. It would put an end to the martyrdom of innocent victims, to the kind of ordeal Commander Bucher and his men had to endure.
 
“In principle, this was the policy adopted by our government to obtain their release. Let this become our official policy, to be practiced by individual prisoners – as a proper expression of contempt for the social systems ruled, not by reason, but by brute force.”

 

Notes: The United States Military Code of Conduct, Article One, begins:  I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

 

Explanation: Article I of the CoC applies to all Service members at all times. A member of the Armed Forces has a duty to support U.S. interests and oppose U.S. enemies regardless of the circumstances, whether located in a combat environment or in captivity.

 

Article II I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

 

Article III If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

 

Article IV If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

 

Article V When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

 

Article VI I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

End of quotes from Code of Conduct.

 

RAND QUOTE 1:

 

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

 

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

end quote

 

 

Honesty as an Objectivist virtue, from OPAR

quote (all that follows is a quote until I say end of quote)

 

"Conventional moralists usually regard honesty as a form of altruism. They regard it as the selfless renunciation of all the values one could have obtained by preying on the naiveté of one's fellows. Objectivism discards any such notion. In both its forms - honesty with oneself and to one's fellows - the present virtue, like every other, in an expression of egoism. Every virtue defines an aspect of the same complex achievement, the one on which man's survival depends: the achievement of remaining true to that which exists.

 

We can now deal summarily with the issue of "white lies." The ethical status of a lie is not affected by the identity of its intended beneficiary. A lie that undertakes to protect other men from the facts represents the same anti-reality principle as the con-man variety; it is just as immoral and just as impractical. A man does no service to his fellows by becoming their accomplice in blindness. Nor does he gain any moral credit thereby; an improper practice is not improved by attaching to it an altruistic justification. If anything, the latter merely compounds the evil. It removes the liar a step further from reality.

 

Is honesty then an absolute?

 

Just as particular objects must be evaluated in relation to moral principles, so moral principles themselves must be defined in relation to the facts that make them necessary. Moral principles are guides to life-sustaining action that apply within a certain framework of conditions. Like all scientific generalizations, therefore, moral principles are absolutes within their conditions. They are absolutes - contextually . . . A man is obliged to practice what he preaches - when he has the political freedom to do it. But he has no obligation to preach or practice any idea that would invite the attention, say, of the Gestapo or the IRS.

 

The same approach applies to the interpretation of honesty. The principle of honesty, the Objectivist view, is not a divine commandment or a categorical imperative. It does not state that lying is wrong "in itself'" and thus under all circumstances, even when a kidnapper asks where one's child is sleeping (the Kantians do interpret honesty this way). But one may not infer that honesty is therefore "situational," and that every lie must be judged "on its own merits," without reference to principle. This kind of alternative, which we hear everywhere, is false. It is another case of Intrinisicism vs. Subjectivism preempting the philosophical field.

 

Lying is absolutely wrong - under certain conditions. It is wrong when a man does it in the attempt to obtain a value. But, to take a different kind of case, lying to protect one's values from criminals is not wrong. If and when a man's honesty becomes a weapon that kidnappers or other wielders of force can use to harm him, then the normal context is reversed; his virtue would then become a means serving the ends of evil. In such a case, the victim has not only the right but also the obligation to lie and to do it proudly. The man who tells a lie in this context is not endorsing any anti-reality principle. On the contrary, he is now the representative of the good and the true; the kidnapper is the one at war with reality (with the requirements of man's life). Morally the con-man and the lying child-protector are opposites. The difference is the same as that between murder and self-defense.

 

There are other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers. An analysis covering such detail belongs, however, in a treatise on ethics.

 

In discussing integrity, I said that to be good is to be good "all the time." I can be more precise now. To be good is to obey moral principles faithfully, without a moments exception, within the relevant context- which one must, therefore, know and keep in mind. Virtue does not consist in obeying concrete-bound rules ("Do not lie, do not kill, do not accept help from others, make money, honor your parents, etc.") No such rules can be

defended or consistently practiced; so people throw up their hands and flout all rules.

 

The proper approach is to recognize that virtues are broad abstractions, which one must apply to concrete situations by a process of thought. In the process, one must observe all the rules of correct epistemology, including definition by essentials and context-keeping.

 

This is the only way there is to know what is moral - or to be honest."

end of quotes

[Mark]

Listened to the Dallas rally video with half an ear while working.  I could have done without his pronouncing “Latinos” with a Spanish accent.

And did I hear him suck up to what is called the "LGBT community?"  If he keeps that up he will lose votes.

He says his rallies are safe places, and so they have been.  Afterwards, outside, is another question.  Fred Reed on what happened at San Jose.  He might have mentioned what happened in San Jose.
 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Behold the low-information voter of the left.

The brainwashed product of propaganda.

At least low-information backwater Christian pastors believe the BS they feed their flocks.

The folks who programmed this poor soul above knew exactly what they were doing. And don't think he's the only one who's brainwashed like that. There are oodles. Now that Trump has exploded politically correct cultural censorship, expect to see more videos and reports showcasing them.

And, what's worse, that man is probably a good person. But look what they are doing to his brains just to get votes and stay in power.

As William (our dear WSS) would say:

Erp...

Michael