Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. Skirting the point again. Yes/no: Do you think the Democrats are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state?
  2. Quoting you: "Sounds good about DC, the people there are citizens and deserve to vote". Aside from not making head or tail of this (I mean, why not declare San Francisco a state with two more senators- the people deserve a vote...) - you haven't noticed the urgency of which Sowell was most aware - A Vote at the Crossroads. Does it matter to you that the Democrats clearly want to extend their power, with such ploys? For what ends, I asked. There is the connection: You make out as if everything is normal, excusable or completely justifiable (i.e. open immigration). Sowell indicate
  3. Um. Many conservative thinkers have lately been doing the best thinking? They can rise above the personae of public figures - i.e. "Trump" v. "Biden" - and identify the political/moral essentials? That they don't take their emotions to be tools of cognition? That they are not subservient to the mainstream media's propaganda?
  4. Rather dated, imo. The left, as a matter of fact, already have some control of "our" boardrooms - and will now do so further. Regulations, taxation and social activists getting products banned - are just a few aspects. The right are -objectively - justified in opposing open immigration, a rationalist idea which overlooks the context of a welfare state, affirmative action, wage laws, etc. which would penalize present American citizens and workers. And "our" bedrooms? I personally know of several conservatives and read of dozens more who have openly embraced that their sons and daughters, sister
  5. All is well! Nothing to worry about. Tra la la... Why are conservative-libertarians more aware of reality? https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/thomas-sowell-a-vote-at-the-crossroads/article_e34abb8c-933b-5650-b0c0-5d43496aeeb7.html
  6. There is ¬everything¬ in their rhetoric, by pols and media, and too, the social media giants, to suggest they will take the US as far Left as they can. Do not be misled, the signs are there when they speak openly about doing away with the filibuster, bringing in DC and Puerto Rico (less probable) as new and Democrat states, and increasing migration, that they want further powers and prolonged, in their minds, permanent, control: To what end? Don't fall for "But they don't mean it!". Next comes, " Even if they mean it they won't do it". Last, "even if they would, they can't do it". Those w
  7. Drooling seen on CNN: https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6223009033001
  8. Aha. Then what about spreading the idea OF spreading germs? That's the deep level of thinking the world has sunk to.
  9. Understood, but an option that wasn't on the table. This unholy alliance comprising the new Democrat Party could have been broken up, probably permanently, with one more Republican victory. This would have heralded a more moderate political return. As it stands, who can tell how far Left they will go?
  10. There's some merit to a certain amount of innocent incompetence above cynically manipulative efficiency. When I find that dichotomy I side with the innocents.
  11. I think you guys fall into two camps: A. Pissed the Trump didn't win. B. Glad that he didn't win. The trouble is the A's blame Trump himself for his defeat, thinking that a president has infinite power, sort of mystical omnipotence, while the vote of the majority is secondary or even superfluous. That notion forgets that the dominant philosophy of the ¬people¬ is what always counts most. That is where Objectivists came in, or didn't. That tide has turned. Trump cannot be faulted for the nation's philosophical transition. Or some would, I'm sure. Which leads to the B's - I hope y
  12. Your small amount of psychological analysis is understandable but rather misplaced, I think. And how you draw a connection from "giving up the legal fight" - to "expressing hatred of the judicial system" - is beyond me! You could not rather view that as ¬respect¬ for the judicial system? We can sit around nit-picking Trump's actions, intentions and motives forever. No one else in history has ever been analyzed as much. His political strategems were ill-advised or naive - meaning - to the Trump cynics out there- that he was somewhat of an innocent in the ways of dirty politics, from his o
  13. Next, in a totalitarian state, spreading ideas will be actionable. (Oh, wait ...) Is there a face mask to protect against a thought pandemic? The irrational is the insane or the impossible, I believe Rand said, Michael. Try to prove in court that it was my germs you caught off a door handle. Then, that it was my negligence or malice at fault. If anyone wants, who and what stops them from going round masked their whole day and every day of their lives? Just leave me out.
  14. Easier to attribute the basest motivation to Trump, i.e. self-enriching and self-aggrandizing, than to consider, just for a moment that his top value might be his country and all he is, warts and all - and is doing is for that end? That is "arbitrary" and skeptical-subjective. We shall see. Obvious is that the Democrats and their propaganda arm, the MSM, are and will, even after his departure be going after Trump with everything they've got, to try to block any chance of his (or the GOP's) re-emergence. They are terrified of losing their power again but also need revenge on him and h
  15. "Lie: intentional false statement". A guy says he saw a plane flew over, the other says, no, it was a bird. And proves as much. Was the first "lying" in order to - intentionally - deceive, or merely mistaken? Get it? "He kept the money". This to you is proof of intent to personally profit? Not for future campaigning in order to overturn the Democrats? Maybe Trump saw the folly in throwing more money at making "his cases stick". Maybe a Republican revival could use the donations? Do you believe they are going straight into his pocket? https://www.politico.com/n
  16. Nice to see you haven't changed your original mantras. Groundless? How did you know that - until they were found to be ...groundless. Why would Trump have to tamely submit without a full inquiry, given there were some suspicious circumstances? True, I think there was and is some denial going on by he and his supporters about the results, but at the time who knew? But he and they knew, full well, this election was the most important one, about the future direction of the USA and they wouldn't automatically accept the result until trying all avenues open to them. It's not as if the Democrat
  17. I can't see the dependent belief at work (whatever Trump says, goes); I saw and recognize still, the identical values in the nation he holds as they hold. Which is independent to each. Maybe, they too will never accept a Left-Socialist-Nanny state...? There is this too: to a far lesser degree do the Conservative-Christians enshrine a political leader, he is after all, as they are, subordinate to God - and all that stuff. The secularist, authoritarian, dictatorial, 'moral' leader is the Left's substitute for an absolute 'God'. They are much more prone to slavish dependence upon 'the Leader
  18. Do you imply that the summer riots/protests were morally justified? If so, why?
  19. Why would you think I was replying to you? The interesting point for me is that tu quoque is a category of ad hominem as I suspected.
  20. "Past actions discredit your argument". Some variations. A. You cannot hold that violent rioting is bad since you violently rioted (/justified violent riots) yourself. B. You believe that rioting is good/justifiable when it's in your cause and bad/unjustifiable in anyone else's. C. You did such and such therefore I can do the same. I think the point being that a person can be objectively correct: initiating violence is bad... And subjectively wrong or vicious: ...[but] when I choose it it is good. So the first necessary effort is to separate the argument from the indiv
  21. TQ a variation of argumentum ad hominem: ---- Types of Ad Hominem Fallacy "There isn’t just one type of ad hominem fallacy. Let’s look at the different types of ad hominem arguments you might find. Abusive - This is where the person is directly attacked. (i.e. This is why a woman shouldn’t do a man's job.) Circumstantial - Personal circumstances motivate a person's argument, so it must be false. (i.e. This car is proven to get great gas mileage. Yeah right! You just want my sale.) Guilt by Association - Due to an association to something negative, an argument is d
  22. Hang on, you are drawing a false equivalence, there is and has been a distinct gulf between the Leftist children and the average conservative and Trump supporter - - it is the first who predominantly were and are making all the noise and social upheaval, e.g., demands for safe spaces and safe words. Etc. The latter are and have been self-restrained and self-responsible for the most part and for the great majority. Natch, this is where the attack on the Capitol will be conveniently cited: as though the few hundred attackers out of some thousands who were there, represent the average Trump suppo
  23. And then there's Kamala to come, it gets worse. Sowell on Harris:
  24. Should be reminding you of Bidenism - the Nanny state, de luxe. Wait and see, presuming you can't see yet.
  25. Resist! Non-violently, goes without saying, intellectually and with passionate conviction. A good article I thought: http://ip1.thejmg.com/t/1830259/2735224/96630/36/
×
×
  • Create New...