Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Peter said: Brant asked, “And Hillary Clinton? Is what?” A wound that won’t heal because it is constantly reopened, with bacteria in the blood stream. This gets my vote as the best metaphor of the election. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Ba’al wrote: Only persons have rights. New born humans are not yet persons. Why? Because they do not have enough brain tissue and neural interconnects to be persons. end quote “Dexter” was a Showtime cable network show about a serial killer who has a job as a forensic technician specializing in blood spatters. He had a “Code,” taught to him by his father and mentor, a police officer for the Miami police department . . . Dexter will only torture and kill a killer who has escaped the legal system. He hides his true nature from everyone except a few select, and understanding people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 The Trump Gettysburg address. This speech was given at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on October 22, 2016 at The Eisenhower Complex. Skip to about 1:36:25 to get the start of the speech. Donald Trump lays out his plans for his first 100 days in office. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 We have argued this before so no comments are expected. This is for President Trump. The issue is a composite of science, moral, political and social thought. Michael wrote: Legally, I consider Roe v. Wade to be like the Dred Scott decision. . . . The individual in fetus form falls under the sovereignty of the mother just like a German falls under the sovereignty of the German government. Acknowledging a woman's sovereignty over her body is the definition that I believe will put an end to the discussion if it ever gets on the table in the mainstream (and after a lot of bickering). end quote We are back to the *ship’s captain or Scully the airliner captain* argument that he or she can toss a mutineer overboard under maritime or airline law. NO. Unless it is a true emergency defined as, “it’s their life or mine,” then a foreign national or an unborn baby is treated differently than ballast. You can’t say, “Well, General Patton, that kraut is in my country now, so I say we shoot all the German prisoners!” An aborted fetus is treated differently than a monthly period based upon its stage of development upon separation and its nature as a thinking (or potentially thinking), human being. Saving the life of a crying or comatose baby is almost always the correct medical and ethical decision, or it is morally wrong and could even be considered murder. The moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique brain is in existence within its mother. THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. That personifies the law of identity. Its rights are modified or nearly completed at birth or abortion, and its rights that were secondary to its mothers because it was dependent upon her for its existence, now change to equal or nearly equal to the mother’s. The fact that this normal, thinking baby is a person is proven by its brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults. A good measure of Aristotle’s and Rand’s law of identity is that they are based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect the argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*. Conceptual thinking is not required for a human child to be granted rights. I agree that a mother’s rights ALWAYS trump the unborn baby’s rights but at some point there is a person on board, and an abortion at that point, without JUST CAUSE would be similar to an airline pilot jettisoning a stowaway. Peter Notes. Rand’s original stance is expressed in, “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, 58–59.: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). end quote What many fail to acknowledge is that her stance DID BECOME MODIFIED CONTEXTUALLY. She later wrote in “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3. Quote: One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable . . . . end quote Here is a quote from Roger Bissell's article, "Thoughts on Abortion and Child Support," that appeared in the September 1981 issue of Reason Magazine: Much earlier than previously suspected, according to recent findings, Neurophysiologists have made EEG measurements of developing fetuses and prematurely born babies and discovered that the patterns of electrical brain activity prior to the 28th week of development are radically and fundamentally different from those occurring *after* the 28th week. end quote In, "The Conscious Brain," Steven Rose, a British neurophysiologist, observes that ‘before 28 weeks the patterns are very simple and lacking in any of the characteristic forms which go to make up the adult EEG pattern.' Then, between the 28th and 32nd weeks, the theta, delta, and alpha waves of the adult make their appearance - at first only periodically, ‘occurring in brief, spasmodic bursts; but after 32 weeks the pattern of waves becomes more continuous, and characteristic differences begin to appear into the EEG pattern of the waking and sleeping infant.' end quote American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura concurs with Rose. In a recent interview, Purpura defined ‘brain life' as ‘the capacity of the cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of the brain, to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness and other genetically recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits.' Brain Life, said Purpura, begins between the 28th and 32nd weeks of pregnancy. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 14 hours ago, wolfdevoon said: I caught that last bit, thought you were talking about me. Translated, "Did you miss me?" hah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Hey there, everybody! If Trump loses is he going to shut up? --Brant I hope so. He's got a big problem on his hands if (I say when) he loses, his name is on his buildings. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here is a report from Alex Jones with a ton of videos of people in their own words. First he goes through a lot of old footage of Democrats (including Hillary) talking about voter fraud. After that he shows how voter fraud can be done. Then he shows how the Democrats are doing it right now. There's more, but that's the basic outline of this report. Oddly enough, in discussing voting machines, Alex stated that the election was stolen from Al Gore. Alex Jones said that. Really. And he can't stand Al Gore. The most interesting thing he highlighted was how Orwell's Newspeak was being used by Obama, Clinton, etc., regarding election fraud. Alex defined Newspeak as holding two contradictory ideas in your head and believing them both. I've never heard it defined in those words, but that is what it is. Then he showed President Obama saying he didn't know what voter fraud was. That it was impossible to rig the election. Yada yada yada. He showed other politicians with similar positions. Then he mentioned that they all--often in the same speeches--say there is danger the Russians will commit voter fraud. Now President Obama wants the federal government to run the elections fearing the Russians. What could possibly go wrong there? Either voter fraud is impossible or the Russians can commit voter fraud. You can't have both and be logical. Yet here are American politicians saying you can and actually believing it. I honestly think many of them believe their own bullshit. Don't take my word for it, though. See for yourself. Michael Newspeak talk is at 10:43, but why go to Alex for this? Rand talked about holding contradictions quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Newspeak talk is at 10:43, but why go to Alex for this? Rand talked about holding contradictions quite often. From the Lexicon: The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 33 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Newspeak talk is at 10:43, but why go to Alex for this? Korben, Maybe because Randians are not talking in public about this as applied to the election? Today's Randians have other public priorities. Paraphrasing Rand, when one group drops their tools and weapons, another can pick them up. Alex is merely picking up what Randians no longer feel is useful, judging from their actions in what they present to the public. Alex has an audience, a huge audience, and he's not bothering with niceties about presenting the Newspeak danger to them. He doesn't use the term "A is A," but that is exactly what he means when he talks about exposing the Newspeak phrases and the Newspeak process that cultural manipulators are trying to ram down everyone's throats. To a Randian, that should be a good thing. Since it isn't for the most part, that means there is a premise or two to check, that is unless Randians no longer find that idea useful, either... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, Maybe because Randians are not talking in public about this as applied to the election? Today's Randians have other public priorities. Paraphrasing Rand, when one group drops their tools and weapons, another can pick them up. Alex is merely picking up what Randians no longer feel is useful, judging from their actions in what they present to the public. But Alex didn't mention Rand he mentioned Orwell, which ties into Alex's notion of 1984 fully existing, which it doesn't (fully exist, and btw 1984 is fiction). 47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Alex has an audience, a huge audience Appeal to authority, I reject it 47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: and he's not bothering with niceties about presenting the Newspeak danger to them. he doesn't use the term "A is A," but that is exactly what he means when he talks about judging the Newspeak phrases that cultural manipulators are trying to ram down everyone's throats. What Alex isn't doing is preaching Objectivist epistemology. What he is doing is claiming a new concept called "Newspeak", which fits into the epistemological system he is using. 47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: To a Randian, that should be a good thing. Since it isn't for the most part, that means there is a premise or two to check, that is unless Randians no longer find that idea useful, either... Michael What's good is what's Rational, at best what I'd describe what Alex is doing as rationalism (edit, which of course isn't good). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Korben, I don't understand what you are talking about right now. In the best I can make sense of it, if your argument is that rational ideas only come from Rand, or that spreading Objectivism using Objectivist jargon is the only form of effectively spreading rational ideas, we disagree. If that's not what you mean, I'm at a loss. Well, maybe, it's that you want to convey that Alex Jones is evil regardless of what he does or says. If that's your argument, we also disagree. From that perspective, I don't know how to interpret a statement like this. 34 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: What Alex isn't doing is preaching Objectivist epistemology. I agree he doesn't use Objectivist jargon, but, conceptually, many of his ideas--epistemological ideas--are identical to Objectivist ones. You have to think conceptually to see it. A concept and a word are not the same thing. The word is only a label for the concept. Incidentally, what does having a big audience have to do with authority when we are talking about people willing to disseminate ideas? If you don't disseminate an idea to a big audience, how do you propose to get that idea to change the culture. Magic? Telepathy? Blankout? I mentioned Alex's audience because he earned it doing things he believes in and he constantly presents it with new content. If there is any authority there, it comes from hard work. Randians tend to get into small isolated groups and pretend they are influencing the culture. That's one of my main criticisms of the subculture. It's a big world out there. And it takes guts to go out into it. btw - From what I remember, Jones did mention Orwellian Newspeak in that video. He defined it better than I have heard before, which is (paraphrasing) holding two contradictory ideas in your head and believing them both. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The Trump Gettysburg address. This speech was given at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on October 22, 2016 at The Eisenhower Complex. A complement to the speech. Newt thinks it's the best and most important speech of Trump's political career. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 To the old left, RPM means revolutions per minute, but they are also fighting their totalitarian, without the Marx, revolution, just not that swiftly. Did you know there are still Marxist professors teaching our kids? History was not kind to them, but there they are, still trying to warp minds. Intractable and evil, with their facial hair and girly curls. It is interesting how the new left wing propaganda machine (abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc, etc., . . .they don’t deserve capitalization) is propping up Hillary. They use several arguments. “Trump being unfit,” or “Trump has already lost,” are two of my favorites. If it is over, what are they worried about? Nor do they don’t seem too concerned that Tim Kaine will take over for a fallen Hillary. She may have a lot of health issues not directly linked to her bout with pneumonia. The poor dear, she is practically an angel . . . or a demon . . . she could never RIP. Eric Trump just wrote me or I would have started with this: You’ve seen how the Democrats, leftist radicals and the lying liberal media are stooping lower and lower to stop the Trump movement. They will lie, cheat and steal put Hillary Clinton in the White House. end quote I left the grammatical error, missing word, in, because it just shows that it is legitimate and not run through anybody but Eric. Official positions. Check. First one hundred days. Check. Projected future stances. Check. Keeping his cool under fire? I agree that campaigning and losing your cool or misspeaking are not necessarily what would happen if he got into the Oval Office. I wonder what Trump’s daily briefings, and coping with the trivial parts of the office would be like? His first post election speeches and communiques with foreign leaders? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Huma, Huma, tsk tsk tsk... You should not bitch so much in writing on the Internet. Look what the Internet did to your hubby... #CrookedHillary #PayToPlay pic.twitter.com/BT1Nv0ZMYg— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 23, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Podesta No. 16: RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 16 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails16 #HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/NfTC3VK1mU— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 23, 2016 Splash... splash... splash... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 btw - Good news on Assange: We will release a statement tomorrow about Assange. Our editor is safe and still in full command despite reduced communications with staff.— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 23, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, And to have human rights, you need to have humans. If nobody agrees on what a human is, the discussion about human rights can get awfully confused. Michael Be reasonable--stop arguing with me. --Branto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 This is pretty ugly (short video): Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The Trump Gettysburg address. This speech was given at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on October 22, 2016 at The Eisenhower Complex. Skip to about 1:36:25 to get the start of the speech. Donald Trump lays out his plans for his first 100 days in office. Michael Censored? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 55 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I mentioned Alex's audience because he earned it doing things he believes in and he constantly presents it with new content. If there is any authority there, it comes from hard work. Alex once again addresses the Trendies (basically, these are the spawn of elitists who are in the phase of life where they are breaking out and strutting their stuff ). And he also talks about his audience in more or less the same terms I understand it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I saw the third and last SNL debate skit, and Baldwin now understands he was being “too funny” in his second debate parody. I still say that one helped Trump. This time he was really, really mean and condescending, portraying Donald Trump out to be stupid and a doctrinaire, monster. And Hillary was portrayed as being mentally “a cut above” and human. It was dreck. Florida and NC in the Electoral College? I think Rubio should really ‘splain to Lucy’ that Mr. Trump does not and will not discriminate against Hispanics. A winning Marco can pull Trump along with him since few people zig zag consistently when they are at the voting machine. Okay. Let me double check. Rubio? Yup. Trump? Uh? Yup, I gotta vote for him. Michael quoted WikiLeaks: We will release a statement tomorrow about Assange. Our editor is safe and still in full command despite reduced communications with staff. End quote So can a Trump victory only be explained by Wiki or the X-Files? No, Scully. Events plus agenda plus campaign plus time . . . Peter Some good lines from “The X-Files.” Whatever happened to playing a hunch, Scully? The element of surprise, random acts of unpredictability? If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced. [Pops a sunflower seed into his mouth] You've never seen me panic. When I panic, I make this face. Agent Scully, you are not going to believe this! I saw Elvis in a potato chip once. Whatever tape you found in that VCR, it wasn’t mine. Scully, should we be picking out china patterns or what? When convention and science offer us no answers, might we not finally turn to the fantastic as a plausibility? The truth is out there. After what you saw last night, after all you've seen, you can just walk away? But you saved me. As difficult and as frustrating as it's been sometimes, your goddamned strict rationalism and science have saved me a thousand times over. You kept me honest. You made me a whole person. I owe you everything. Scully, and you owe me nothing. I don't know if I wanna do this alone. I don't even know if I can. And if I quit now, they win. Fox Mulder: Bambi also has a theory I've come to acro... Dana Scully: Who? Fox Mulder: Dr. Berenbaum. Anyway her theory is... Dana Scully: Her name is Bambi? Fox Mulder: Yeah. Both her parents were naturalists. Her theory is that UFOs are actually nocturnal insect swarms passing through electrical air fields. Dana Scully: Her name is Bambi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, I don't understand what you are talking about right now. In the best I can make sense of it, if your argument is that rational ideas only come from Rand, or that spreading Objectivism using Objectivist jargon is the only form of effectively spreading rational ideas, we disagree. If that's not what you mean, I'm at a loss. Well, maybe, it's that you want to convey that Alex Jones is evil regardless of what he does or says. If that's your argument, we also disagree. From that perspective, I don't know how to interpret a statement like this. 4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: What Alex isn't doing is preaching Objectivist epistemology. Alex Jones says there is a war on for your mind, and I agree. In essence Ayn Rand said the same thing. Fundamentally Jones and Rand are different. Rand fundamentally was a philosopher, Jones fundamentally is what? I underline "argument" above, which is interesting that this has to do with argument, but it really has to do with identity, making the proper one on Jones. There is a war on for your mind, which side is he on? Objectivity? 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I agree he doesn't use Objectivist jargon, but, conceptually, many of his ideas--epistemological ideas--are identical to Objectivist ones. You have to think conceptually to see it. A concept and a word is not the same thing. The word is only the label for the concept. They are not identical to Objectivist ones. Rationalists have concepts, too, but are they supported by axioms? I agree the word is only the label for the concept, but often Alex uses the same label for different concepts that the label was supposed to subsume. He's clever. Often his adjectives for "things that exist" create classes that are off the mark. How about the integrations to his concepts? That's some of the epistemological system that I was referring to before. Is Alex intellectually honest? 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I mentioned Alex's audience because he earned it doing things he believes in and he constantly presents it with new content. If there is any authority there, it comes from hard work. Randians tend to get into small isolated groups and pretend they are influencing the culture. That's one of my main criticisms of the subculture. It's a big world out there. And it takes guts to go out into it. One thing Alex is not is a warrior for Reason and Rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Rand fundamentally was a philosopher, Jones fundamentally is what? Korben, A political activist for freedom, small government and local sovereignty. No more. No less. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, A political activist for freedom, small government and local sovereignty. No more. No less. Michael Yes, we disagree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: They are not identical to Objectivist ones. Rationalists have concepts, too, but are they supported by axioms? Korben, Like non-contradiction? Sure. I just gave you a prime example. That's what I mean by thinking in concepts to see it. Jones doesn't use the term "fundamental axiom" or "axiomatic concept," but he uses the concept. If you let go of your prejudice and stop blaming Jones for not being Ayn Rand, you will learn a hell of a lot about propaganda and mind control because that's the main tool of the big-government people he opposes--and he's hell bent on exposing all the covert crap. And if you don't want to learn it from him because, as he says, he acts crazy and talks goofy, I suggest you look into some of the people he interviews. A good start, for example, a regular is Steve Pieczenik, who used to be Assistant Secretary of State for Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He was partner doing the technical advising with Tom Clancy when Clancy was alive and wrote that string of bestsellers. One of Pieczenik's main areas of expertise is psychological operations (psyops). He can get a bit doty nowadays as he relives his days of glory, and sometimes his paranoia leads him to make mistakes about certain current affairs, but man, does he know his shit. That's just one person. There is a ton of 'em. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now