Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Space Patroller

Regulars
  • Content Count

    514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Space Patroller

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 09/16/1945

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Massachusetts
  • Chat Nick
    Space Patroller
  • Interested in meeting
    Sure. The real desirability of a place is directly proportional to the square of the number of O'ists therein
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    C. Denis Lyman
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    Been a Randite since 1968. Got the term from Robert Heinlein's THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS and applied it at a time when O'ists were called officially "students of Objectivism". By 1876 I'd been around a bit long to be a "student" and needed a term to hang my space helmet on that would ID me in the non=O'ist world
  • Occupation
    Disabled since birth. Legally blind. I run http://spacepatrol.us

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.spacepatrol.us
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    space_patroller_laser

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fall River. MA
  • Interests
    Science, Science Fiction, Politics (in the philosophical sense of the word), psychology, Music; 50's/early 60's, Progressive Rock, Psychedelic. Romantic, Synthesizers/combo organs, 12-string guitar and exotic stringed instrumetns.
  1. This is only a test...

    Haven't seen you lately.

  2. almost true, if you can't stand the kitchen sink, get out of the heat BUT, the rule was that the family was kept out of it, obscene and borderline obscene were off limits and you don't see the leftists treated the same way. Unitl the advent of Rush Limbaugh, it was pretty much 100% one way. Now try to make jokes about the Kennedys' offspring. Chelsea Clinton was off limits. imagine if someone did a joke about Sasha Obama and Henry Gates. Ironically, when it was 100% one way. Palin would have gotten sympathy and probably enough to make a difference, so talk radio has evend the score
  3. JACKPOT!! http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08jun.html Also http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08feb.html And don't forget the Michelle Malkin vid of Gingrich and Pelosi smooching it up on the Green couch
  4. It's music to my ears. I've been hoping for this for 20 years. The God Squad and Greenie-Weenies on the same side. We should encourage it. Both are mystics, they belong together. The only reason the conservatives became pro-science/technology/growth, at least in word was because of the left going green in the 1970's and compared to the left, they are pro-reason, but only compared to the left. Some of us know who the real good guys are with regard to that divide. Some of us knew that 40 years ago. Others of us still don't know. Back around 2000 Rush read a column about the Democrats "taking back God" Did you think Christians really like capitalism? http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/endof.html This ought not be news. Where has mainstream Christianity been on the political spectrum for the last 45 years? Including the Catholic Church? Rand: "ONe could onl wish that they had given St. Thomas a better funeral". For those who believe the "God sqaud" is on the right. You did not read an article; c1978 in ERGO about President Carter as an elder in his church giving a sermon in praise of death. It was an article I clipped out from the Prividence Journal and sent to ERGO. Calling sN....Calling sN....
  5. Zip had broght in new data that severely questioned the main premises from which I was dealing; that WACO was the full and complete cause of McVley's action which was attributed to the findings of the court. It appears to have been a proximate cause, more like an excuse. While the principles still held, he was not acting under those principles, just using them as an excuse to do what he was looking for the first excuse to do.
  6. The problem with that is that it ain't so. If a chosen course is not taken, the ship does not stop, momentum pushies it in the direction it was travelling under power. While it appears to be a zero-sum situtation, it is not a static situation. the same dynamic forces are still at play, it's just that they are perfectly balanced. However these aren't unguided since the are human forces and the powers behind them would be looking for ways to break the impasse. If stasis is your goal, that's the best possible scenario. But stasis is not your goal. You would be tryimg to undo the statism that has been alread put into the system so you would be part of the dynamics. Even if you shut off dynamic input all sides would be working with the existing dynamics to maximuze the effectiveness of both the internals of the system and to break the impasse from the inside to open the system up to outside influence Din't forger, the bad guys are a complex, not just the pols so they would be working outside the system within the culture so the stasis you desire would not even be tenable and maybe not even possible. You would have to attack the collectivist-alruist parts of the culture just to maintain stasis
  7. This is one of those nasty deals where neither side is right: The government, in violation of the protocols or Roe v Wade is using tax money to fund abortions. Taxation is theift and some persons believe abortion is morally wrong so there is an infringement of porpert and a violation of freedom of conscience. So, at the root, the government is culpable here, is the aggressor and is breaking new ground in the march toward totalitarianism. So it bears half of the blame On the other sice you have the fanatics. As is pointed out by "I wonder if they realized that they sound like muslim terrorosts?". Probably not. But that should be no surprise. All fanatics are terrorists. Now What would you do if your beliefs were violated in a gross and fundemtal way? Through the 60's and 70's the right used to do glowing images of the US population resisting the Soviet occupation in verious fictional scenarios and terrororism against the Soviiet-installed puppets and beuareaucrats was part of the paln. I hear folks here talk about stocking up on guns and things so the totalitarian eventuality is being considered. As to can't something be done in the courts. Alsa. The Alien and Sedition Acts were struck down and nothing has come to replace them and ever since the Chicago 7 trials it's been a free for all But this is what happens when reason is abandoned as the go-to guy for figuring things out. As a fottnote to this. I heard on "ReBoortz" on the week of 8 July,a dixcussion between Boortz and a rep from Charter Arms, his firearms dealer, and the subject of Timothy McVey's shit came up and the guy from Charter said "|The government had some crazy stuff in mind and McVey put a stop to that. [things like] training Navy Seals to search houses. but that all ended with that [McVey's action]". This was Boortz and a firearms dealer, not me so take it up with them
  8. Ohter names to look up are Gerard K O'Neill and General Daniel Graham both under the term high frontier
  9. Reason is the tool of knowledge. That is either true or false. I do not recall Rand putting an "except" clause into her statements of the validity of Reason being the Sole guide to knowledge. That Reason is the sole guide to knowledge is an essential part of Objectivism. If Reason is not to be the sole arbiter in the abortion matter then what is: Faith? Feelings? Force? Revelations from teh Spirit of a 19 millenia dead high priest of Atlantis, or those of the pre-esixtent trans-ectomorph of a 19 millenia not-yet-born beaureaucrat of the now-famous Hybrethian Galactickle Empire? It's either A is A or no way Jose. In confronting the Hedonists, Aristotle asked, to prove the superiority of mind over pleasure as the arbiter of the good, "If you had no consciousness then would you know if you are experiencing pleasure?". The Hedonists had to say "No" to be honest. So consciouness is established as the tool of knowledge. But what is the human Consciousness? Rand: "the only choice man hasi is to think or not to think" So this consciousness is volitional. How does it work properly if not to take the materials provided by the senses or transduction instruments and place them in a systematic, hierarchical non-contradictory frame of reference? Is this not what Reason does Now you have to use some sort of knowetic mechanism to ascetain if a thing is a life or a potetial life. You have only 4 choices Reason, Faith, Feelings (whims) or Force. Now can you "render unto reason that which is reason's and unto faith, feelings (whim) or force, that which is faith's, feeling's or force's" in the area of knowledge AT ALL? Abortion requires that you make a distinction of life or not life, that is to discern the IDENTITY of something. Since Reason is the only proper arbiter of knowledge then I submit again If given the choice of abortion supported by reaosn or not at all, the Objectivist, qua rational person, must say "not at all". To willfully, knowingly and freely deny the absolutism of Reason by so much as a picometer for a picosecond is to not be an Objectivist AT ALL. In fact let me make it a principle "in ANY area requiring judgement, if the choice is betweem x supported by reason or not at all, the only proper choice is 'not at all'". How would you know an actual life but for Reason. It was the rational philosophy of Aristotle that showed the difference between an actual and a potential and that the actual took precedence. So even your question presupposes the use of reason to determin living from potential life or part life so Reason is already in the driver's seat.
  10. Not trying to convert; just an intellectual ammunition drop-off. True, but it could also come from necessity as the case with the Plymouth Colony, but your point is taken and supported. There has to be something in it for somebody (read individuals). It's called "eyes on the prize"
  11. It seems that there's a lesson here about CommieCare Do you want the same folks who erased the moon tapes running health care?
  12. YOU'RE RIGHT! It was a Republican Congress that voted to legislate what kind of light bulbs we can have in our homes in 2008...er...right? Um sorry about that. and wait until you see wht Cap and Trade will do for you and I don't see the Right giving us the bum's rush to pass CommieCare. It seems that they're putting up a squawk, Where are the "pro-choice"er's on CommieCare? No, since the late 1980's the pro-choice movement has tried to expand abortion to late-term, available to minors without parental consent and government-financed (which at the time of Roe v Wade was conceded to be a violation of separation of church and state since it would use tax money to support an activity that violated the moral precepts of a major sector of the population); all of which violate either the terms or spirit of Roe v Wade of which I was in '73 and am now, an absolute supporter on principle, just so you know where I stand. The "methodology" I use on the pro-choicers is to quote their spokesperson and see how that squares with Objectivism ("a man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none"). Nobody put a gun to their head and made them say that. Well du-uh! It's not that they don't know how to make their case, it's that they don't WANT to. For the third time "We don't want to get involved in philosophy" At that point it's over. Any attempt by Objectivists to defend, mitigate or ameliorate that is just self-embarrasing. Just say "Aw, they don't mean it" and take your medicine as the wall falls on you. When they speak for themselves it doesn't matter two turds in a teacup what the God squad is or does, it's about them and only them. Moral relativism is not an option. Did not Ayn Rand say "Take them at their word"? Well, I always do. How can anyone be on "the correct side of the issue" , of any issue, when you assiduously strive to evade "Exixtence exists" i.e. the whole damn universe? They're clueless on Klendathu; and as buggy. We are on the correct side of the issue. To be there one must first embrace two things: Existence and Reason which are elements of philosophy It's not like the "God squad" is the only God squad. either, Ever hear of the "Green church"? And do you have to geuss where the "pro-choice" folks are with respect to that? and go to the next abortion "rights" meeting and announce that you support capitalism. I see no logic to feeding the mouth that will bite you right off the bat. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is starting to question the value of sacrifice. Do you hear the left, of which the pro-choice movement is part. doing that? Regarding the "God squad" and the left (Existentialsm/Nihilism generated) there is a quote by Rand on another thread: "Kierkegaard is superior to Existentialism because he was religiou [philosophically oriented?]". I can say no more. I've said all I can say
  13. Plus they had to give the money hand over fist to the eco's as in "Energy Star" and "Tax credits for 'going green'" and create really useful things like the EPA and two DoE's and fund the proto-versions of CommieCare and these were mostly Republican administrations. (1969-77). Though to be fair. CONgress was overwhilmingly Democrat but the GOP wans't that commited to capitalism. the early 1970's saw the steepest rise in Federal spending in the second half of the twentieth century (ERGO published the graph in the late middle '70's). You may wish to read two Rand essay's "Apollo 11" and "Epitaph for a Culture" She was on the guest list for the Apollo 11 launch.
  14. Romney is probably still your best choice. In re Romney-care. he probably made the best of a bad bargain with MA being , According to David Brudnoy, "a wholly-onwed subsidiary of the Democratic Party". your choices there were bad and worse. so that's a dead issue and far from the only issue. The fact that he won the governorship as at worse, a moderate Republican speaks volumes, and he is more conservative than you've been led to believe (before you open your mouth, look at my profile) . He is telegenic read 1960 debates, he has the experience of taking companies that are two notches from the crapper and putting life back into them (for whcih McCain attacked him from the left) and he is a "mature" candidate, i.e. benn in it before. All forecasts, even based on what has happened say the economy will suck badly in 2012 unless you believe in fairy dust. the media will certainly try to manipulate the perception of the economy. Just the deficit to date is $T2 that we know of. That's gotta have an effect, and a bad one. Don't forget, Carter inherited a better economy than he left. and the 1976 economy was pretty sad. Look up "misery index". Palin is starting to fade and the others named would be newbies as will Bobby Gindal. As for Huckabee...well..."Thank you, Huck: Barack". What Romeny has to do is get media savvy and be more assertive A good predictor will be the election of 2010 just as the election of 1978 was the predictor of 1980 As a candidate (meaning the whole package) I give Romeny a B with the range being C- (Huckbee) to B. Most of the named candidates have the goods but there would have to be a breakout for one of them to do it. Romney, Palin and Huckabee have the name recognition which, in business terms means "location". For those thinking of voting for Spongepants Squarebob: We are going to get somebody, so don't think you're being clever. This is a relay marathon, not a sprint. I did pass in '92 and '08 (the outcome was already decided anyway) I'll probably vote for any of them with the exception of Huckserbee
×
×
  • Create New...