Happy Easter!

For those who celebrate Easter, have a wonderful celebration!  For everyone else, have a great day as well!

easter

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. Black Flag® says:

    Like Christmas, Easter is a pagan holiday assumed by “Christians” and the like.

    And like Christmas, which was the celebration of the Solstice, Easter is celebration of the Equinox.

    The Sumerian goddess Inanna, or Ishtar, was hung naked on a stake, and was subsequently resurrected and ascended from the underworld. One of the oldest resurrection myths is Egyptian Horus. Born on 25 December, Horus and his damaged eye became symbols of life and rebirth. Mithras was born on what we now call Christmas day, and his followers celebrated the spring equinox. Even as late as the 4th century AD, the sol invictus, associated with Mithras, was the last great pagan cult the church had to overcome. Dionysus was a divine child, resurrected by his grandmother. Dionysus also brought his mum, Semele, back to life.

    In an ironic twist, the Cybele cult flourished on today’s Vatican Hill. Cybele’s lover Attis, was born of a virgin, died and was reborn annually. This spring festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday, rising to a crescendo after three days, in rejoicing over the resurrection. There was violent conflict on Vatican Hill in the early days of Christianity between the Jesus worshippers and pagans who quarrelled over whose God was the true, and whose the imitation. What is interesting to note here is that in the ancient world, wherever you had popular resurrected god myths, Christianity found lots of converts. So, eventually Christianity came to an accommodation with the pagan Spring festival. Although we see no celebration of Easter in the New Testament, early church fathers celebrated it, and today many churches are offering “sunrise services” at Easter – an obvious pagan solar celebration. The date of Easter is not fixed, but instead is governed by the phases of the moon – how pagan is that?

    All the fun things about Easter are pagan. Bunnies are a leftover from the pagan festival of Eostre, a great northern goddess whose symbol was a rabbit or hare. Exchange of eggs is an ancient custom, celebrated by many cultures. Hot cross buns are very ancient too. In the Old Testament we see the Israelites baking sweet buns for an idol, and religious leaders trying to put a stop to it. The early church clergy also tried to put a stop to sacred cakes being baked at Easter. In the end, in the face of defiant cake-baking pagan women, they gave up and blessed the cake instead.

    Easter is essentially a pagan festival which is celebrated with cards, gifts and novelty Easter products, because it’s fun and the ancient symbolism still works. It’s always struck me that the power of nature and the longer days are often most felt in modern towns and cities, where we set off to work without putting on our car headlights and when our alarm clock goes off in the mornings, the streetlights outside are not still on because of the darkness.

    What better way to celebrate, than to bite the head off the bunny goddess, go to a “sunrise service”, get yourself a sticky-footed fluffy chick and stick it on your TV, whilst helping yourself to a hefty slice of pagan simnel cake? Happy Easter everyone!

    • OMG you sound exactly like a friend of mine. Would you guys just please let the celebration take place? You did all that pagan stuff as a kid, too. No harm was done to you by participating. Sure, some people make no religious connection to the day, but don’t hate the many millions who have good intentions. Besides, both things can take place simultaneously. A three year old has no concept of death, let alone the death of Christ. But you’re still showing the three year old that a celebration is in order for the day. Hopefully someday they’ll be able to tie it all together on their own.

  3. Black Flag® says:

    🙂

  4. Big congrats to the Badgers for being tough as nails against Kentucky. I did feel bad for KY, though. Woulda been nice for the kids to finish undefeated. But that’s history already. On Wisconsin! Wrap it up Monday night vs Duke.

    Sparty left the building shortly after they stormed in. Only missed my prediction of a Wisc/ MSU championship by one game. Go Badgers!

  5. null

    Prayer for the Day!

  6. As the old man would have said as he rose from his bed on Easter Morn.

    Cristos Voskres!

    Then he would have pulled out the largest chocolate Bunny in my basket and bitten off the ears. Family tradition!

  7. Oops put it on the wrong page.

    Happy Easter 🙂 Again, I hope everyone is having a great day!

  8. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The bells have finally stopped ringing. Quiet at last. Went for a nice walk out along our waterfront promenade to Union Point Park. Gorgeous day to welcome spring. The park was filled with people from all walks of life. Young, old, dressed in fine easter clothes, live impromto music playing, fishing, crabbing, sailing, Hispanic, asian, M/E, white, black, bikers with harley’s…everyone enjoying each and everyones company, even the flora and fauna was having a nice day and bursting out…Very peaceful.

  9. Dale A Albrecht says:

    “We have peace in our time” Neville Chamberlain 30 Sept 1938

    1 Sept 1939 European WWII begins

    “Once in a lifetime opportunity” Barack Obama 5 April 2015

    ?? April 2016 ?????

  10. @Buck, Are there any Court cases that have addressed the issue of boycott’s ?

    @JAC, do we not all boycott business’s quite often, even if there is no real desire to boycott (as in organized)?

    I don’t conduct business with companies as a matter of principal and as a matter of health. I have no problem telling people why I choose this way, but I don’t ask them to join me. I figure they can make up their own minds on the matter. Is this NOT free speech?

    • Which brings me to Operation Choke Point. The Feds are pushing banks to stop doing business with legal business’s, namely gun shops. This, I feel is a great example of JAC’s position that boycott’s are NOT Free Speech. It was just reported that SUN bank will no longer do business with a large gun shop in Florida. This, I see as a boycott that can be dealt with through the court’s. Who to SUE? The bank or the Fed’s or both? If gay’s can sue a baker, a gun shop can sue a bank for similar reasons (neither are a protected class).

      What say all of you? 🙂

      • I wonder…is this a form of discrimination? A bank is a public institution….do they have” the right to refuse service to anyone”……

        • Great question. If banks are involved with the FDIC, I would say NO, they can’t refuse service. But, in this day and age, it seems that we have lots of problems that need answered and/or fixed. I’m sure the free market can fix the banking issue when it comes to gun stores. The fact that the Fed’s are involved should be alarming to everyone.

      • You have to dig deeper.

        In a free market, such a condition is not an issue. A bank can and has a right to choose its customers.

        But in a government-cartel run banking system, where competing banks are prohibited, this is a serious problem.

        If the government controls who can set up a bank, the monopolistic power of such a bank is devastating when such banks refuse customers. Where can the gun shop go now? Even if a group wishes to set up a bank that would take gun shops, they can’t because of government violence that prevents them from doing so.

        I faced a similar thing in my past life. Due to machinations of the powers in that jurisdiction, my nemesis plied family relations who was a local bank to close my account in an attempt to push my business out of the country. I was given an ultimatum to pay some $30,000 against a fourth parties (my nemesis nephew) debt or my account would be terminated.

        I went on the offensive and demanded full withdrawal of my funds in 24 hours or I would report the bank to the Central Bank for failure. (Using their laws against them).

        It was quite a problem for the bank. And it was quite the thing in 24 hours to sit in a room while a teller counted out $300,000 USD in $100 bills, put it my briefcase and wonder if I was going to be robbed at the door.

        I was lucky that there were foreign controlled banks that were quite happy to open my cash account, but in the US, where all the banks are essentially run by the same banking system, this situation would have been disastrous for me as it is for the gun shop.

        • Back door gun control? The States need to step up and remove said banks from the State, that would be an interesting repercussion, then the States could open their own bank, outside of Federal control. Is that not possible?

          • Yes, the States can organize their own banking, however, they would not be able to avail themselves of FDIC protection. The ability to attract depositors would be challenging.

            • Why couldn’t private insurance handle the FDIC issues? Yes, it would cost money, as all insurance does, but it could be coupled with State guarantees as well. OR, just have the insurance that covers the business cover any “bank” failures. It could be done, at minimal cost. People are going to be seeing the feds for what they are, if they already haven’t, as nothing more than a corrupt criminal cartel feeding the elite.

              • Absolutely.
                Other issues come to play, like accessing your account outside of the State, or inter-bank transactions.

                The Fed exerts authority for such transactions as they cross State lines.
                None of these issues are insurmountable.

              • There are some very liquid State Banks around the country. But caution is the governing world. The FDIC insures up to $250 K per bank per depositor. If you waltz into a bank and open an account for one million, the FDIC only protects $250k. You can have several tax numbers under different categories but that is cumbersom. You can spread money out to other banks.

                Or, roll the dice and keep all your money in one place. Also, remember, the FDIC sets all the rules.

              • D13
                All true, however, the FDIC has paid out accounts above the $250k in the past (generally when it is a “big bank” and not when its a “small bank”).

                They promote depositors to go to big banks by this arbitrary whim.

              • Insurance can handle things but……………………………………….you would not be able togo outside the state as BF has stated. Once you cross a state line….bazinga!…and that means mail, phone call, smoke signal, pigeons…any method that crosses state lines and the insurance company would then be regulated in favor of FDIC.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      You deciding not to shop at a particular business is NOT a boycott, by definition.

      That was my point to Buck. He is free to stop doing business with whom ever he wants for any reason he wants. He is free to tell others he made such a decision and why he felt it was appropriate.

      But when you take the next step, to soliciting participation and to organizing targeted “boycott” you have left your “right to speech” behind and moved to “infringement upon another’s rights”.

      Now notice that this characteristic of a “Right” suddenly moving to “Not a Right” appears unique to Speech. Which is why I raised the possibility that speech is not a “natural right” in the way we think of it.

      If we claim speech, all speech, is a Natural Right then we have to develop sound reasoning to explain how that Right is tempered to prevent it from Conflicting with other Natural Rights.

      Remember, Natural Rights CAN NOT be in conflict or contradiction.

  11. Let’s start a culture war in the Wala household. I challenge Mrs. Wala to make a post on SUFA defending her husband, Buck the Wala’s claim, that there is no problem with her daughter seeing a man nude in a public place.

  12. Brought forward…..

    JAC…..have you ever stopped to consider that the same right that allows peope to boycott and to storm stores and restaurants to disrupt work or/ commerce by physical presence…gives you the same right to stop it….even if it is violent confrontation? Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to discuss several things with 3 DA’s of three separate cities ( Fort Worth, Amarillo, and Austin ) and one US Attorney that is assigned to Houston. The specific discussion was about the trend that seems to be catching on where protesters are entering establishments and physically disrupting meals and/or running customers off….including standing out front and physically blocking people from coming into the estblishment…..and using the “right” of free speech as an excuse or reason.

    Your discourse with Buck actually hits on a subject that is going to become a major issue in months to come leading up to 2016…..The discussion centered on the extension that Texas has about the castle doctrine. In Texas, the castle doctrine extends from your home to your car ( or any mode of personal transportation ) and your work space. You are ENTITLED to protect your personal space…..with violence if necessary. There is no duty to retreat.

    Now, having said that, the discussion turned to an employers right to protect his business from not only physical damage but economic damage as well and whether or not employees acting in the stead of the owner, who may not be present, is liable for any civil or criminal acts as a result of protecting the place of employment. Since The Texas Castle doctrine does not have a duty to retreat and we can stand our ground, the question was broached about physical contact, weapons, and the use of any means necessary to stop any type of protest on your personal and/or private property. The statute protects employees and the owner from civil suit as a result of protecting property.

    All 3 DA’s said that you are justified in protecting your property and, by extension, your means to make a living, if there is ACTUAL or PERCEIVED harm…and harm does extend to economic. They also said that even if your business opens to a public street or sidewalk, a business owner has the right to use force if the entry ways are blocked or if people are physically assaulting potential patrons….and physical assault was described as simply touching someone trying to gain access. ( The Texas laws allow properly licensed gun owners to prevent violent criminal activity. )

    All this to say, that freedom of speech does not extend to blocking entry ways, actually coming inside of an establishment, and creating or organizing a physical boycott of said establishment. In addition, Texas Civil law allows for monetary damages as a result. So, at least here, yiu are allowed to use any means necessary to clear your establishment of protestors and to prevent blocking of doorways and entry ways.

    Now, as an interesting side note, the Federal attorney disclosed to us that they have received direct orders from the Justice Department to use the full weight of the justice department using harrassment by claiming bogus civil rights violtions. He went on to say that the Justice Department probably will not win any cases but the cost to the business owner to defend themselves against the Federal Government may make opposition to Federal encroachment a moot point. he went on to say that he, personally, does not like this form of Federal harrassment but he would follow orders if given to him.

    So, the short story is, Texas business owners canand will defend their property and be justified in doing so up to and including the use of weapons.

    • We have an almost identical law here in Pa.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      I have considered that, and it is one reason I know that organized boycotts are not a right. Nor is the effort to organize them.

      Just as inciting riots or insurrection is not considered “free speech”.

      Despite the irony that those who wrote the Bill of Rights stood on the street corner inciting “insurrection” only a few years before.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      So the US Attorney is being instructed by the DOJ to do violence upon a person or business by false statements and unlawful means? Because few can withstand the potential unlimited assets of the US Attorney’s office. And an attorney who has sworn to UPHOLD the law and Constitution goes along for fear of violence upon himself ie termination, by said DOJ. I say COWARDS!!!

      The discussions on this site of cases citing prosecuters selectively prosecuting due to time, costs trouble etc. Lack of evidence I can understand but by selective prosecution I’d believe the State will lean towards those unable to defend themselves readily. Occassionally a big high profile case is thrown in just for appearances. Shooting ducks in a barrel come to mind.

      I’ve gone back and re-read the book analyzing the Watts riots in LA. One of the primary driving forces of the unrest was the un-employability of a large percentage of the blacks in the area. A person would be picked up on some suspicion of one thing or another. They’d be processed through the system. Found no cause for further prosecution, No evidence or they actually found the actual perpetrator, a record was still generated. That WOULD not be expunged and take a life of its own. An employer would check records, find one and voila, no job for you, even though there was actually NO charges filed. It was a legal system that was an abomination to mankind. Has it changed, I doubt it.

  13. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Does anyone here remember the hacking a few years ago of “embarassing” e-mails written by Hillary about foreign leaders. The fact that this was from her personal server didn’t seem to register or be reported in a loud and garulous manner as to the “revelation” today. Nothing will be done even though it was in violation of Federal law.

    Or the Whitewater papers the DOJ and the special prosecutors were searching for suddenly turned up “after” the statute of limitations expired. The Clinton’s had the DOJ pick them up in their private White House quarters and Janet Reno took them and then said they’re moot now and never used. Everybody involed in Whitewater went to prison including the Lt Gov under Clinton, Hillary was lead counsel at the law firm involved with the scam, but they were untouched.

    Also does anyone remember during the POST 9/11 investigation Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, took and destroyed very secret documents but only got a hand slap fine. The former Clinton administration did have a seat at the investigation table.

    No offense to Buck, but I truly believe the law in this country has long since not been dealt evenly or blindly, with common sense or judiciously. But has been so perverted by special interests. In that group I include the government, congress, prosecutors, activists, rich business owners, you name it.

    I’m reminded by a statement by Lenny Bruce’s lawyer. “Lenny’s problem was, he didn’t understand the law, he was after justice.”

    • Dale,
      In a nation of laws, who makes the laws becomes paramount.
      When law is aligned with natural human rights, this is not a problem.

      When law is used to prohibit non-violent action, this is the problem.

      If I do not like white, I make a law banning white.
      I declare all men are subject to the same law, including myself, therefore, the law is just, since it applies to me as well as you.

      But I have no problem with the law, since it promotes my own desire.
      You have a problem with the law, since it undermines your desire.

      But as long as you (errantly) believe that the law is just when it is universally applied, how can you complain?

      The answer to the problem is understanding when law should be made. Using law to prohibit non-violent action will lead to perversions of justice.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Just out…Lufthansa spokesman says they were under NO LEGAL obligation to report the Germanair co-pilot’s depression to the aviation boards. This ought to get interesting.

  14. @ BF…….yes, I have heard of such (banks paying out larger sums) but it is rare….and what I found very interesting in the last banking debacle….the way that the banks manipulated the bail outs money…..it was criminal but whom is going to prosecute? And, I know you understand this, several big payouts to banks that were “deemed” to big to fail…..sure ended up in strange places…..I will use the term kick back.

  15. I was interesting to see the accounts affected……right along party and donor lines.

  16. BF…interesting movement on the Swiss Franc to the Australian dollar.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    I am curious about the extension of your point on boycotts to other areas.

    “You have the right to organize your boycott on your own property. Invite the like minded people to your house and agree to not buy my goods. I don’t care.

    But occupying my property is not one of your rights.”

    So does this “right” you claim extend to the telephone, internet, Public TV, print media, etc, etc.??

    How is it you consider it a “Right” to organize a boycott when such a tool is intended as a use of Coercive Force, by its very definition?

    • “So does this “right” you claim extend to the telephone, internet, Public TV, print media, etc, etc.??”

      Why not?
      It is not coercive.

      Voluntary action includes withdrawal from acting – that is, withdrawing your consumer participation for whatever reason you determine, including no reason at all.

      There is no crime or evil in using rhetoric to obtain a goal, as long as the goal is non-violent.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        So your defense of boycott rests on your base argument that only VIOLENCE is prohibited.

        Coercion is appropriate as long as no violence occurs. Is that correct?

        Once again, is physical injury the only measure of violence?

        Specifically, at what point if any, does boycott cross the line from right to not a right in your view.

        • “So your defense of boycott rests on your base argument that only VIOLENCE is prohibited.”

          Correct. Rhetoric is not violence.

          It is NOT coercion. You are redefining the word to mean both violent and non-violent acts.
          This is where you error.

          How can you coerce someone NON-violently?
          Certainly one can present choices … “If you act this way, I will withdraw my benefits from you”, but such a condition has an a priori condition, that is, you have gained a benefit from me in the first place, because of an equal a priori choice.

          Example:
          I give you a job that you benefit because now you have a wage.
          Later, I insist that you boycott a store least I fire you.
          You claim this is coercion.

          Yet, if I insist you must expand your responsibilities in the job so to maintain your productivity, least I fire you, do you believe I am coercing you? That now I am “wrong” and without right to determine the conditions associated with your job?

          “Once again, is physical injury the only measure of violence?”
          Violence is a physical action, not a “I must measure your thinking to understand whether my words are physical”

          “Specifically, at what point if any, does boycott cross the line from right to not a right in your view.”

          When it turns from rhetoric into an action of violence upon person or property.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        I would also like to hear (see) your views on whether the harassment of the Pizza place was consistent with a Right of those doing the harassing.

        • How is such harassment applied?

          Are you standing in my way or are you merely babbling insults my way?

          If the former, you’ve crossed the line.
          If the latter, I laugh at you, and carry on.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Specifically, the business’ phone lines were tied up to the point they could not do business. The threatening and harassing calls to the owners cause the daughter to suffer severe stress and fear. The stress on the owner, his daughter and the disruption to customers caused him to close the business in hopes the storm will go away.

            The notoriety from the harassment effort caused the media to show up creating an uncomfortable situation for customers.

            So here is a critical point. You claim that the rhetoric cannot be violence but blocking entrance goes to far. Boycott is not just rhetoric. It is a concerted effort to create economic harm to the owner of said business. That is the very definition of a boycott.

            How can you claim this is not the use of coercive force?

            It seems your definitions prevent executing a boycott, as in physical demonstrations that block the entrance, but organizing such an effort is just fine.

            If this is true then a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime or violation because there is no violence until the actual murder is committed. True?

            You need to provide a more comprehensive explanation of what you view is allowable and not allowable. And of course why.

            • “Specifically, the business’ phone lines were tied up to the point they could not do business.”

              The phone company is the service provider to the store.
              The store is not receiving the service they expect.
              Phone company is the issue and its their problem to resolve.

              Threats are coercion. This is crossing the line.

              “The notoriety from the harassment effort caused the media to show up creating an uncomfortable situation for customers.”

              Boohoo.
              I do not judge “rights” based on being “uncomfortable”.

              “You claim that the rhetoric cannot be violence but blocking entrance goes to far. Boycott is not just rhetoric. It is a concerted effort to create economic harm to the owner of said business. That is the very definition of a boycott.”

              It is JUST rhetoric, who cares?
              Threats are not rhetoric. Threats are not arguments.
              Insults are not threats.
              Babbling is not threats.
              Being “uncomfortable” is not a result of threat.

              The store equally has access to rhetoric.

              “It seems your definitions prevent executing a boycott, as in physical demonstrations that block the entrance, but organizing such an effort is just fine.”

              Organizing blocking an entrance is irrelevant. Who cares?
              Blocking the entrance is relevant

              No need to act upon those that stump the soap box.
              Act upon those that act in violation.

              “If this is true then a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime or violation because there is no violence until the actual murder is committed. True?”

              It is not a claim to reason to wait until you are dead to act against a threat of violence.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                Your claim that rhetoric is not violence ignores thousands of studies showing that word can in fact cause harm, all by themselves.

                In fact, we are seeing the result of nothing but rhetoric when people FEAR being labeled a RACIST of HOMOPHOBE, causing them to remove themselves from public discourse.

                There is also the affect of bullying by nothing but words or other forms of speech, like pictures.

                We may not like it but most people do not react solely on the basis of reason and logic. Most in fact are emotionally affected and react in much the same manner.

              • “Your claim that rhetoric is not violence ignores thousands of studies showing that word can in fact cause harm, all by themselves.”

                Those “studies” are the fallacy of begging the question. They start out assuming rhetoric is violence, and then go into their own rhetoric, redefine violence, and then clam it causes harm.

                What is missing is your understanding of “harm”.

                Just because my choices do not benefit you does not make my choice harmful.
                Just because my choices annoy you, does not make it harmful.
                Just because the truth exposes you, does not make the truth harmful.

                All these conditions start with you first.
                If the truth “harms” you, then it is because you, first did an action that you want hidden knowing that exposure of your own action will deliver you consequences.

                But that means you merely want to avoid the consequences of your own choice

                Why blame me?

                Just because people pretend labels cause them grieve is no argument of harm.
                It is PRETENCE, not reality.
                If they are not racist, then being labelled as one has no effect other than demonstrating that those that have applied the label are ignorant.

                If it is true, then, gee, its the truth.

                So, no. Prove “harm”.
                It has to be real, which means physical, applied upon the innocent, and not merely the consequence of your own choices.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        Almost forgot to answer your question. None of these other mediums are YOUR private property. They are provided to you by others as a service.

        So if the right extends only to your private property, your ability to use these tools should depend on the rules of use established by the actual Owner of these other properties.

        Yes?

        • Yes, if I use your microphone, and you do not like what I say, it’s your microphone.
          I will still say what I want, but not through your microphone. I will find another.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Anyone want to bet against me on the following assumption?

    If the pizza shop owner in Indiana reopens, a homosexual couple will show up asking the business to cater their wedding!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Nobody would take that bet ! As far as the threats to the pizza shop, I think it’s wrong, but, the business could have demanded protection from the Police or hired their own security.

      Is ins tilling fear a form if violence? Isn’t that what terrorism is ?

      Overall, I think the business should have stayed open with protection, in these parts, it would have cost nothing for armed security against the Gaystapo, Bwahaha. 🙂

    • What is wrong with just saying “no” without explanation or reason. I am unaware of anything that requires giving someone a reason. It is really easy to not accomdate someone…I cannot fathom why anyone feels the need to explain…no.

      If someone pops off and says that you are refusing me service beause I am gay……my answer would be no, it is not because you are gay, it is simply because I do not want to. If they keep on harping on it…..tell them to prove it.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I am sure some here are wondering why I have ONCE AGAIN raised the philosophical arguments over “Rights”. One is my own exploration into this key field of human law and understanding. The other is because in our every day debates we all throw these terms around as if they have universal understanding. When in fact they do not.

    I previously posted here the differences between positive and negative rights and how the two primary divisions in American politics use them. But the confusion over what is a right and what force or affect they have on us is even more complicated.

    I find it very interesting how we throw terms around to deal with specific concepts when the concepts of the term itself are so muddled.

    I am also trying to develop a singular description of the concept of Rights that could be used to help clear the waters for future generations. I know that is futile but I do believe worthy of a layman’s effort. After all, it is we laymen that are most affected and should thus have the most say in what these concepts mean.

    Everyone should take the time to read and try to at least partly digest the information in the following Wiki article. You will see just how confusing the term Rights has become. And why we Americans have such a hard time communicating important ideas with each other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’ll read later, outdoors now. But, I often repeat the phrase, “your rights end where mine begin “. I think it can also be said the same of my rights and when they end, because I have no right to interfere with another’s rights. This could be better written by using natural rights, but the gist is there.

    • Rights is a question of Philosophy

      Philosophy is a science, the science of thought, the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

      Like physical science, philosophy contains inherent and fundamental axioms.
      1) Truth
      2) Universality
      3) Consistency
      4) Empiricism

      Applying “Rights” to these axioms, one quickly comes to a short conclusion about Rights.

      A Right must contain a universal truth, consistent upon all people, that can be expressed in reality.

      There is but one Right. Everything else is a consequence of the expression of this Right.

      The Right to be free from the impositions of others.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        In the town in Austria where a leg of my family emigrated from, being anything but Catholic was severely prosecuted until 1905. Protestant service would be provided to a patient at the hospital after 1873.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I like your 4 points. It really hits the nail on the head about “Rights”. I alway get a kick out of the press running all over the world claiming it is there right to be there etc. and how dare they block my access “it’s my right” as the press. What right? there is no universality, usually a lack of truth based on data that is selectively choosen by bias….and even here where the freedom of the 4th estate is a right given by man, is even getting mighty tenuous.
        It sure thins down so called rights, quickly.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        So we have a right to be free from imposition of others, yet you claim it is a right to organize and carry out an economic boycott of a business that has not caused direct harm to those boycotting said business.

        Which takes me back to “I have no right to impose my will upon others” and “boycotting is an action intended to force my will upon others”.

        This discussion is quickly leading to a strange distinction. Where in calling for boycotts is a Right but actually conducting one is not.

        • “So we have a right to be free from imposition of others, yet you claim it is a right to organize and carry out an economic boycott of a business that has not caused direct harm to those boycotting said business.”

          My boycott is not an imposition.
          I am not imposing upon you

          Test the measure.
          If I do not buy from you because I do not like your product, you have no sale.
          To you, this is valid and NOT me imposing upon you, the seller

          But in your bizarre mindset, if I do not buy from you because I do not LIKE YOU, you have no sale. Same consequence.
          But to YOU, this is NOT valid and me imposing upon you.

          You pretend that the reason behind my choice to buy or not buy somehow changes the consequence (not buying) to be imposing or not imposing.

          There is NO force my will upon others.
          My rhetoric has no force.
          It is a set of arguments presented to others, and they, themselves, make their own choices based on a huge set of arguments of which mine are a minor part.

          To pretend my words are the same as a gun to the head is irrational.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        You need to explain why you think these conditions are AXIOMS and where in the philosophical realm you think they exist as axioms.

        Oh, and your fundamental right is not a “fundamental” or “base”. It is dependent upon another as well.

        Simply ask WHY you have a right to be free from others imposing their will upon you. This will lead you to another more basic ethical principle.

        One more thing. Yesterday you claimed that “Rights” are action. Your supposed fundamental right does not involve action.

        So maybe you need to address the nature of “Rights” again. Are they obligations? Perhaps authority? Or maybe just “rules” that should not be violated but often are anyway.

        • “You need to explain why you think these conditions are AXIOMS and where in the philosophical realm you think they exist as axioms.”

          All science is based on root axioms.
          They are a methodology of discovery.

          If you do not accept the axioms of philosophy, you are not doing philosophy
          You are doing “something else”, but you cannot call it philosophy.

          Likewise if you do not accept the axioms of science (the scientific method), then you are not doing science. You are doing something else (like alchemy or astrology) but you cannot call it science.

          “Simply ask WHY you have a right to be free from others imposing their will upon you.”

          It is not a “why”.

          A principle of philosophy has to satisfy all the four axioms.
          It either does or it does not.
          If it does, it is a primary principle. If it does not, it is discarded.

          It is like you asking “why does gravity exist?”. There is no why. It merely exists.
          Why the universe established gravity is a moot question. Not only is it an impossible question, even if there was an answer changes nothing about reality of gravity.

          “Your supposed fundamental right does not involve action.”

          Rights are measures, evaluators, of right and wrong.

          “Imposition” itself is an action.
          To be free from an act (imposition) of another is the Right.
          The principle measures your own actions and the actions of others.

          A person does X.
          Test X to the principle.
          Does the action X meet the principle or not?
          If it does, it is Rightful
          If it does not, it is not Rightful.

          The principle is a measure of an action.

      • The Right to be free from the impositions of others.

        As I see this, all other “rights” we claim derive from this. The “right” to self defense for example. These days, one’s “rights” aren’t what many think they are. People getting fired from their job because they express themselves in a public forum is but one example. Of course, there is no “right” to the job to begin with, which means that the other right doesn’t really exist at all.

  20. Very interesting….I am reading an artice on the trading of metals and coins and currency. IT seems the trend is now coming to……bank wires only….no credit cards, no personal checks, no cashiers checks and not bank drafts and no increments over $10,000 oer year per customer.

  21. Just a note about “Discrimination”

    If one leaves this issue to the market place, then the dollar corrects the problem.

    Pepsi Thrived Because Segregation Existed

    Walter Mack, a Pepsi executive in the 1940s, was a progressive man who supported progressive causes. As such, when looking into ways to expand his brand’s reach in the marketplace, he noticed something unfortunate.

    In all of Pepsi’s advertising at the time, African-Americans were either completely ignored or depicted using only negative stereotypes and imagery. That’s when he was struck with what turned out to be a revolutionary idea: Treating blacks like actual people.

    Sensing a massive opportunity was afoot, Mack brought in an African-American man named Edward Boyd to head up a team that would create marketing geared toward portraying black people in a positive way. Like this ad, featuring a family throwing down on a six-pack at the dinner table …

    Of course, this was still the 1940s, so Pepsi’s efforts weren’t exactly applauded. Boyd’s team faced constant threats and harassment from the racist masses almost every step of the way.

    They persevered, though, and were even able to use Coca Cola’s blatant racism to boost their market share further after Boyd distributed a Time Magazine report about a Coke executive’s support of Herman Talmadge, a staunch segregationist who also happened to be the governor of Georgia at the time.

    The campaign was a rousing success, so much so that it’s credited with launching the concept of niche marketing. Pepsi’s market share increased dramatically, even overtaking Coke entirely in markets like Chicago.

    …..

    If one man discriminates against his paying customers, another man gets a new customer.

  22. Times are changing. That may be more important than anything we argue about. Times are changing.

  23. http://russia-insider.com/en/czechoslovak-reservists-facebook-group-issue-memorandum-against-nato-planned-war/5316

    Sounds like something that our soldiers should read. Much truth to this, even here.

    • As an old Right Winger who mostly rejects conspiracy theories out of hand, I have a real fear about this stuff. Somewhere along the line we have slipped the rails and become the bad guy claiming to be the good guy.

      Thinking hard these days about when it got so bad and of course how. No question that Obama, Bush 2 and Clinton were totally corrupt regimes and I use that term on purpose. Seems that after the USSR collapsed, Bush 1 started the trend. Being there at the collapse of the “Evil Empire”, which it most certainly was, we, as a nation seemed to fall into the trap that all our decisions were moral and if you disagreed, you were immoral.

      I think back to the hand that Reagan extended to Russia and how quickly it was pulled back. Reagan was a man of vision, Bush 1 was nothing more than a head CIA spook with his mind locked permanently in Cold War mode.

      • I find many ct’s to be entertaining and mostly crazy speculation, some can cause quite a lot of thinking. Why did we help bomb Libya? What did they do so wrong? Why did building 7 fall straight down after 911? It wasn’t hit by a plane and was never truly engulfed by flames. Why are people still referring to Sandy Hook as a mass shooting site, when there is clear evidence coming out that proves the school was closed a year earlier due to lead based paint and asbestos? Why did one of the children “killed” at Sandy Hook, show up in an identical picture of a child killed in Palestine a year later? Why was Anderson Cooper using a green screen claiming he was there to do interviews?

        These are just a few questions that should be answered, but won’t for quite some time. MAYBE 🙂 We just can’t stop asking, because if we do then the government story will always be the only story, and that wouldn’t be a good thing at all. 😀

        • Problem with conspiracies is if more than one person knows he will eventually blab. Think on how many would have to have been involved in the Kennedy thing or the WTC.

          Now I do have problems with TWA flight 800 mostly because of the witnesses who something going up before the plane came down. Knowing the media, that may be all BS too ut the whole thing about the spark in the empty fuel tank blowing off the front of the plane still troubles me.

          We bombed Libya for the same reason we threw Mubarak under the bus and tried to do the same to Assad. The Ebola Administration does not like the cut of their jib! Anybody figure out yet whether the big “O’s” Daddy and step daddy were Sunni or Shia?

          • SK,
            “Problem with conspiracies is if more than one person knows he will eventually blab. Think on how many would have to have been involved in the Kennedy thing or the WTC.”

            This is the problem with you.
            No matter how much evidence disputes your claim here, you hold to it irrationally.

            I guess you believe no war secret can exist because of the blab. Yet, secrets from WW2 remain secret in direct contradiction to your claim.

            Further, it does not take a lot of people to do those things. All it takes is a handful in positions of authority to do so. Again, I presented you a real case to demonstrate this case (fly over by a commercial jet over foreign territory to photograph an installation).

            That’s the problem. People are unable to expand their understanding even in the face of repeated fact.

            • We have been using civilian planes for reconnaissance forever…..even with satellites we still do that. So does every other country in this entire universe. If you know how to do it, there are specific N #’s that indicate same for American based planes. Pretty common knowledge actually.

          • “Problem with conspiracies is if more than one person knows he will eventually blab.

            Change conspiracies to Top Secret info or Classified military secrets. Each and everyday hundreds if not thousands of US citizens in government or in the military are privy to information that they are told not to disclose to the public through the threat of imprisonment. When you leave the military, you sign a nondisclosure form, that basically states the same. The amount of secrets kept under wraps by thousands of people is astounding, and only done so under a threat of imprisonment. Change that treat to death, I can promise people will be quiet.

            Sorry, but the “blab” theory is just more rhetoric with zero basis of fact. In fact, I just proved it completely false 😀

  24. Just out on the news……negotiations wth Iran….( cough cough )……taken off the table…spot inspections. No one has a right to inspect any facility unless Iran gives permission.

    Hoo boy………and we know that ain’t gonna happen.

    • You and I being contemporaries have the same feeling about Nukes. Both of us were old enough to understand October of ’62 and what a DEFCON 2 looks like. These younger people just do not get it, not at all. If I have heard it once, I have heard it a dozen times in the past few weeks, “Who are WE to say they can’t have nuclear weapons”?

      They should all go and Watch “On The Beach”.

      • 110 years ago, the man in the White House would have answered the “Who are we” question with, “We are the guy with the big stick!”

      • But that is the question.
        Who are you to determine who should you or should not?

        The root problem is the two-tier system, those that have and those that don’t.

        If you don’t want nuke proliferation, start pounding the rhetoric for the US to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. as per the NPT dictates. But hell, the US doesn’t follow its own treaty, so why should anyone else?

        • Exactly…treaties are worth nothing. There are no remedies violation. The NPT was nothing but propaganda for the press and political points. Just like Obama is doing now….first, he has no authority to sign a treaty or agreement….second, this crap with Iran….is crap. They have no intention of stopping anything……the best way to counter them, and this is unfortunate, just arm the rest…..reinstitute MAD…..

          And, there is nothing wrong at all with carrying the big stick. The problem lies in the use of it.

        • That will work really well.

      • You are correct in the youngsters….and what surprises me even more, is the belief and trust put in Wiki……Wiki is a rag and nothing more….but it is amazing how many put stock in it. The second most important issue is in academia….they do not belong in politics…..and are actually worse than wiki….

        Anyway, I am sure you remember in grade school having nuclear drills.

        • When I went through school, in the early years, they drills began as nuclear drills, then they were changed to tornado drills. Tornado drills continue today at every elementary school in these parts today. The plans that are drilled rarely work well if there’s a direct hit though, so why bother 🙂

  25. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus-scientist-claims-he-has-virtually-unequivocal-evidence-that-could-help-explain-the-whereabouts-of-christs-remains-10158514.html

    Evidence also points to Jesus having married and had a son, geologist says – but his findings are likely to prove controversial

    Talpiot Tomb, a burial site found in East Jerusalem in 1980, was a family grave for Jesus of Nazareth, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Judah.

    Christians will jump for joy in claiming “see, he existed”, and then shun the evidence of his mortality and family, including naming his son Judah….

    Isn’t religion wonderful?

    • I have this bridge connecting Lower Manhattan with Kings County that I can get you really cheap.

    • Religion….the strongest weapon there is.

      • I think that would actually be the word Minority.

        • Not true at all. The US is still very Christian, most are quiet and don’t want conflict. Christians don’t know how to handle their beliefs being under attack, as most are non-violent. There is much going on in this country right now that should scare the shit out of anyone who’s paying attention. I’m quite happy with my choice to move to the deep country. Maybe I’ll write an article, maybe not. It could never happen here, so many say.

    • You are going to have to accept the fact that there is an all out assault against Christians….when are you going to learn to quit turning the other cheek…you will just get it slapped again.

      • I’ve accepted that fact-it in reality fits perfectly with how the Bible said things would go-and how Christians should handle that reality is being debated -but right now 🙂 I’m just pointing out that if one of these examples is discrimination than they are both discrimination-or neither is discrimination-I hold to the last one.

        • I would go that neither are discrimination. I don’t think that many people care about conducting business with gay people, but draw the line on the “event” of gay marriage. How can one discriminate against an inanimate object? The whole issue has been way overblown. I wouldn’t be surprised if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the States and allow them to disallow marriage of gays.

          Want to see the hard left heads explode? SCOTUS votes against gay marriage, against Obamacare and doesn’t rule in favor of some other issues the Left is wanting. Citizen’s United on steroids 🙂 I wonder if they will riot?

  26. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The next time you are confronted by an “environmentalist”, remember this:

    Ross McKitrick: (speaking specifically about “Earth Hour”)

    Its ideas would send the West back 100 years and keep poor nations impoverished and wretched

    A few years ago, a journalist asked me for my thoughts on the importance of “Earth Hour” which was reprised this past weekend. What I told him applies today, perhaps even more so.

    I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.

    Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as on the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.

    Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of safe hot water.

    Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke-and parasite-related lung diseases.

    Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the Third World should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the West developed.

    The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that. Instead, I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness.

    By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation, it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining and enjoying the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity.

    People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there, too.

    I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

    Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply. If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations. No thanks.

    I like visiting nature, but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization with all its tradeoffs is something to be ashamed of.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    AXIOMS

    Those following along on these discussions need to understand that there are NO fixed set of principles called Axioms, on which the science of Philosophy rests.

    Truth itself is studied by philosophers as an AXIOM and as a Definition, along with other means. Such as rhetorical and linguistically.

    Axioms are a “means” of conducting philosophical study or inquire into various things or concepts. An Axiom is assumed “true” and then the arguments are evaluated against it.

    Despite many hours of search I have yet to find a distinct set of Axioms on which philosophical principles are evaluated. There is also not a singular means of evaluation. There are in fact almost as many theories about how the universe works as there are philosophers. OK, not that many but it does seem like it at times.

    Also keep in mind that using a single word to describe an Axiom is not helpful. For example the use of “TRUE”. Does this mean a question must be true? Or does it mean that truth exists? And if true exists can it be discovered and if so with how much certainty.

    Lets address one of the others proposed by BF, namely Consistency. Must all things be consistent, are all things consistent, or does consistency exist? If it is a precondition of truth, then why is it a separate Axiom. Is not True necessarily universal?

    Now lets introduce the reality of language differences in dealing with and validating concepts, like Truth itself.

    Axioms are assumptions that are considered to be true, but even that is not required in axiomatic analysis. The common used basis for deciding if an Axiom is true is that it is “obvious” to almost everyone. Now how many stated “truths” or “axioms” do you know that are believed to be ABSOLUTE by most people around the world.

    Hell, even the Law of Identity is challenged by some Philosophers, as is the theory that absolute truth can be discovered or proven.

    The criteria for identifying Core principles or concepts is not whether they meet a fixed set of criteria or Axioms, but whether they can be reduced further to more succinct principles or concepts.

    So lets take BF’s claimed core principle of Right not to be imposed upon. HOW do we know this is a core or BASE principle? Can it be reduced to something that justifies it?

    How about “I have a right to exist”, or “I have a right to my life”. In this case “being imposed upon” is justified by a more basic idea. Imposition in other words, will be counter to a more basic “truth”, assumed of course. In this argument “imposing” violates the principle that you have the right to your own life as you see fit. That it violates your ability to exercise your own free will. Thus a Right to be free of imposition is NOT a Core principle, as argued here. It is a derivative of the Right to one’s own life.

    Logically, if one imposes upon others then you give others the authority to impose upon you. Which in turn violates your free will and right to your own life. So logically, you establish a rule that states “I have no right to impose upon others”, or “I have a right to not be imposed upon by others”.

    Remember here, that logic is but one means of discovering or evaluating the “truth” or “contradiction” in principles or arguments. My “logic” could be challenged due to one of my assumptions in the statement. That being that by imposing on others I give them the authority to impose upon me. This seems intuitive to most of us and we consider this a logical statement. But it is in fact an assumption that deserves testing itself.

    Yes, this stuff can make your head explode and can cause all kinds of confusion and even heartburn. It can in fact drive you crazy, as the long line of philosophers who have gone insane proves. I believe out challenge as “laymen” in this field, and being the people who have to live with the consequences of the Philosophers, is to try and boil things down to what can be reasonably shown as truths or principles which can be shown logically will lead to a less violent and thus more “flourishing” existence for humans.

    • It can in fact drive you crazy. It is driving you crazy. Relax, have a cold beer or six, let life happen. It’s so much easier and don’t end up with some silly pill on the daily list of to-do’s 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Gman

        It is not driving me crazy at all. It is driving me to THINK. This includes questioning my assumptions and conclusions almost daily.

        Now I will grant you that I remain sane only because I can set this stuff aside from time to time. I do think that one needs to crawl out of the rabbit hole before everything looks like either a rabbit or a hole.

        However, I find that these questions can come to mind even while doing those silly things on the to do list.

        I think the insanity comes from living ONLY in the theoretical combined with the frustration that the world does not see it the same way. I admit to getting very frustrated with the state of our nation and the “supposed thinking” I witness each day. One reason I feel it important to find ways to explain the theory in terms of “simple reality”.

        Besides, my work on philosophy in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology has increased my kill ratios when hunting birds and big game. Not to mention increased my enjoyment of the world around us, while killing birds and big game, and “some” fish. 🙂

        Now checking my comment…………… well maybe I do need a break. Think I will go prep the garage for painting trim and molding as well as refinishing kitchen cabinets. Remodeling is about to begin again.

        Just wanted to let you northeasterners know that we woke to SNOW yesterday.

        Visual: Flowering plums in full glory, purple/pink plumes everywhere, standing in a field completely covered in fresh white snow. Mixed with the occasional forsythia, stalks of yellow reaching skyward, against the falling white.

        • It’s all cool. Just pulling your chain in a nice way. 🙂 Seems you have some natural beauty in your part of the world and know how to appreciate it, something all to often lost by the city dwellers. We have rain and thunderstorms for the rest of the week. Had to pull the pump from the well and rebuild it yesterday, it’s 80 feet deep and hits water at 40 feet, we have plenty of water, although we do have lots of iron in it, which we have a filter system for.

          I’m working on a design for a barrel windmill that I can activate for electricity in an emergency. Learning a lot about how to make one work, but, I’m thinking 🙂

    • JAC
      ‘Those following along on these discussions need to understand that there are NO fixed set of principles called Axioms, on which the science of Philosophy rests.”

      Utterly false.
      For philosophy being a search for truth, the axiom OF truth is paramount.
      In other words, attempting to manifest a lie to be substantive is contrary to philosophical study. One cannot declare “up is down” in philosophy.

      Universality is equally such an axiom. The discovery of truth demands such a truth be applicable “everywhere”. The laws of Gravity apply everywhere in the Universe. Human truth applies to every human in all times everywhere.

      Consistency as well. Once a truth is revealed, to then suggest it does not apply breaks consistency.

      And lastly, it is without purpose to fantasize about a truth that has no application in reality.

      These are the axioms, JAC, not the mumblings inside your post.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        Then point to other sources which have established these supposed axioms as absolutes for the field of philosophy in general. Or even for the subfield of ethics.

        You know full well that the study of Philosophy is much more complex than you are portraying. Including those who have declared up is down and wrote large tomes to defend their claim.

        Truth exists is an Axiom for some but as a “definition” for others. You claim it an Axiom for the field of all philosophical study, despite some philosophers using definitional theory instead of axiomatic theory. Ironically, you describe “truth” as a criteria based more on definition than an Axiom.

        Another example; The Law of Identity is considered by some as an Axiom of Metaphysics. Yet it is NOT believed to be an Axiom by others.

        I agree that Philosophy can be described as a search for the true nature of the universe. This includes a search for the true nature of man, including how we think and how we live or should live. This includes theories in ethics and politics.

        However, other than the Axiom of Truth you find no reference to your list of “axioms” within much of the literature on general philosophical inquiry. While those characteristics or criteria exist in some theories they do not in others. The search for truth does not make universality a pre-requisite, for example. The field of ethics and politics is a good example. Normative ethics studies what human do, and they certainly do not all have the same ethical standards or political principles.

        Which means that the “truth” about how humans organize themselves can have great variety, meaning lack of universality.

        I appreciate your approach as it is more consistent with my own views. However, I am willing to recognize that the field of study we call Philosophy has much more variation and does not conform to such a limited list of constraints.

        Your list would be consistent with the Rationalist approach where in Logic plays a major role. But we both know not all philosophical inquiry use this approach.

        • “Then point to other sources which have established these supposed axioms as absolutes for the field of philosophy in general. Or even for the subfield of ethics.”

          So you pretend that claims that are false are as correct as claims that are true, and that they are equally correct. .

          So you pretend that a claim that contradicts itself is still true.

          So you pretend that a truth in one place has no merit in another place.

          So you pretend that Peter Pan stories are critical to human understanding of the universe.

          Bizarre. In other words, you have utterly no clue to what is foundational in Philosophical enquiry

          “You know full well that the study of Philosophy is much more complex than you are portraying. Including those who have declared up is down and wrote large tomes to defend their claim.”

          I made no claim about the STUDY of philosophy whatsoever. This is your brain fart to misunderstand the foundations of a study to be that which is studied

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            I am not the one pretending. You claimed that these criteria are Axioms for the Science of Philosophy.

            They are not all Axioms for the field of philosophy. No matter how much you claim them to be so the various documented theories of Philosophy show they are not axioms.

            That would make you the pretender. Much like trying to create a box to rationalize your arguments, using the Axiom or the Definition to prevent disagreement.

            The only one of your list mentioned, in any of the literature I checked, as a general Axiom was Truth.

            The study of Normative Ethics ignores some of your Axioms and its findings show ethics are not universal or even consistent.

            I would have been fine with you proposing these criteria as a rational means of determining if a particular principle or value were True or False. But you did not do that, you instead claimed they were Axioms governing all philosophical exploration.

            I am simply pointing out that they are not, as evidenced by various Philosophers who proposed theories and created arguments that did not conform to these supposed axioms.

            • “I am not the one pretending. You claimed that these criteria are Axioms for the Science of Philosophy.”

              Absolutely they are.
              Look, if you believe contradictions exist, that up is down, then you are not doing philosophy

              If you believe your fantasy story about Peter Pan, then you are not doing philosophy

              If you cannot apply your babble to reality, then you are not doing philosophy

              Just like if you do NOT use the scientific method, you are not doing science

              You are doing something else, but don’t call it Philosophy and don’t call it Science.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                One last time, I hope. It is your use of the term Axiom that is causing my disagreement.

                These principles as you call them are not Axioms, in that they are not stated as Axioms governing the study of Philosophy anywhere that I have found. They are not Axioms in all philosophical areas of study or inquiry.

                The use of Axioms is ONE METHOD of philosophical exploration or inquiry.

                The use of Definitions is ANOTHER METHOD of philosophical exploration or inquiry.

                Normative Ethics is the study of ethical principles which develop “naturally” among humans. These “principles” vary among cultures. To claim that the ethical principles must be universal and consistent is not consistent with the Normative method of study. Which can only mean that your “axioms” do not apply to this method of inquiry.

                Now you can establish your axiom to test these Normative Ethical principles, but that would be YOUR argument, not an argument of the Science of Philosophy. Do you see the difference? In such an argument I would expect you to claim that certain “normative principles” are not “true” because they are not universal or consistent. Your opponent would argue that they do not need to be consistent and the fact they exist make them true. Your opponent is not using an axiomatic method of inquiry or argument. You are. Making the two arguments difficult to compare on an apples to apple basis. Much like those who are using a logical argument when others are using a normative/social/emotional argument.

                Or even worse, where one is accepting the Law of Identity and that Reality is Real and the other is not.

                I also question the idea that any principle MUST be “empiricist” in nature. I am not saying your claim is false but questioning your rationale for including this on your list.

                Let me try this another simple way as to why I object to the use of “axiom”. In everything I have read the concept of an “axiom” is used to constrain a line of inquiry, thinking, argument, etc. It is not used as a criteria for ALL philosophical inquiry.

                You gave me the impression that you were claiming these concepts as axioms for the entire field of Philosophy. I could agree with one of these, that being Truth. Because the purpose of Philosophy is to find the “truth” about how the Universe works.

                It is with the other criteria you listed I have more disagreement. Not because they are not worthy for an effort to build a “logical” argument, but because they are not applicable to many areas of inquiry or conclusions reached by other “philosophers” in other “areas of inquiry”.

                Now it is possible I misunderstood your intent. But I just went back and read your actual words and it seems you were trying to constrain the entire field, not one aspect or one methodology or one “level” within a field, like Core vs. Secondary principles.

              • You obviously do not understand what an axiom means.

                They are absolutely axioms “An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning”

                They are not obviously stated everywhere in Philosophy just as the Scientific Method is not stated in every branch of science. It is unnecessary as it is axiomatic to the study

                They absolutely apply to every area of philosophy. To question this demonstrates a root misunderstanding of the topic.

            • Look, JAC.
              You simply cannot begin to address any question IN philosophy without first accepting those 4 axioms.

              In a question of what is true or not, if you do not accept the invalidity of contradiction for example, how in hell are you going to even address the question of truth?

              That is why these are AXIOMS. Without these fundamentals, it is not philosophy.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                You claim I don’t understand yet you have posted my own argument.

                “They are absolutely axioms “An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning” Let me add, a starting point of inquiry into a question or hypothesis.

                They are not obviously stated everywhere in Philosophy just as the Scientific Method is not stated in every branch of science. It is unnecessary as it is axiomatic to the study

                They absolutely apply to every area of philosophy. To question this demonstrates a root misunderstanding of the topic.” Whether they apply depends on the question or hypothesis.

                Oh the irony that you posted the Stanford discussion which I was going to post the other day in response to you. I did not because I didn’t want to bore everyone anymore than I have.

                Notice the Stanford article is all about the Axiomatic Theory of Truth. Which infers pretty strongly there are OTHE THEORIES OF TRUTH, that do not utilize the AXIOMATIC theory.

                In fact it was this article that caused me to think your other “fundamentals” really amounted to “defining” truth via establishing second order axioms. Which is ONE OF THE METHODS or THEORIES discussed.

                Now address the question HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS TRUE?

              • You have no clue how to even address the question since you have no foundation or methodology to approach it.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    RIGHTS

    SUFA homework for this evening. Now that the playoffs are over, unless of course your hooked on Women’s Basketball. In that case this is homework for Wednesday evening.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

    Warning: You will begin to question the validity of “singular” answers to even the question of “what is a right”. But you will get a good understanding of why we have trouble communicating with each other on the subject.

    • Homework, Part 2. Why is this being done in US cities? This is a military exercise in Florida. They are practicing extraction. More coming!

        • Study very carefully from where these pics are taken.

          • The angles…

            • They are from a video taken from the exercise, as far as I can remember.

              • Angles…look at camera angles and then ask yourself……who took the video and why?

              • Probably knew of the exercise and got up high to film it. Not uncommon to do these things. It was posted as an “exercise”. These types of exercises are becoming common. However, it may be part of an actual police action that led to arrests (those people shown in the video). It seems that some 1200 people have been arrested in the last few months as part of a major police action against organized crime and gangs.

                I have no problems with exercises, used to do them all the time (hated them back in the day). I just don’t see why the military needs to train in actual US cities, they have their own bases that are small cities themselves. Seems like they are just asking for an accident. But anyway, I’m at the point that this video was part of the mass arrests being reported. I’ll venture to say that the Blackhawks were not military, but Federal government assets.

      • You big test, WHO uses white vehicles?

        • YOu are going to say Delta Force and United NAtions…..you will be wrong.

        • Remember way back when these white vehicles were first pictured in large groups, it was claimed then to be DHS. Most other org’s use black.

            • Gman…you really need to go out and hunt something. I watched this video, and it is not the first one of its kind, there is no threat of Mexico invading the US…and especially Texas. I do not know who the author of this is….but the Texas National Guard is deployed in the very cities that this guy mentioned. I can also tell you that the map and the list of the Mexican army and other units listed are NOT…..repeat……NOT on the Mexican border as we speak.

              La Raza is nothing more than a special interest group working in conjunction with the progressive left and several very liberal senators.They have joined as an amicus brief for the 5th Circuit court of Appeals….where the law suit by Texas will end up. The US Justice Department ( sorry for using the US in conjunction with Justice…we all know that there is no justice with this administration ) lost its case yesterday to life the stay. THe progressive left has no concern for the rule of law and is trying to get millions into the US before 2016.

              La Raza is not asking anyone to invade the USA and retake Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. All they have to do is ask Obama….he will give it to them.

              • I’m just trying to have some fun! Geez, lighten up 🙂 Which video are you referring too? The one I posted has no words or anyone speaking, is not in Texas, says nothing about Texas or Mexico. It don’t SAY anything, just a video with helicopter sounds. What are you talking about, cuz you now have me wondering about your sanity 😀

              • G, click the YouTube button on this video, there’s a video listed on the side about Invasion from Mexico. I think that’s the one the colonel is talking about. Why would you question his sanity. I’ve never seen him mislead us yet.

              • I didn’t post that video. I posted the one from Florida. Not sure why a side video would make a difference, other than miscommunication. I have the video embedded in the thread, so I don’t have to click on anything to watch it, except the play button.

              • Wow…on my side I have voice…..when I click your posy…interesting.

              • posy=post……..no, dont go there.

              • Sorry Colonel, didn’t understand where you were going with you post about LaRazza, when nothing I had posted even remotely went there. Misunderstanding I reckon. Besides, nothing to hunt till Spring Gobbler in May 😀

          • Just A Citizen says:

            GMan

            Several years back, maybe ten or more, GSA started ordering WHITE vehicles as did many agencies which previously had vehicles of color.

            WHITE is much cheaper than Black or other colors. So it is very likely the vans and other white vehicles are GSA rented by whomever is conducting the drills.

            If you find a large car lot that sells Fleet vehicles you will find rows and rows of WHITE vans, pickups and work trucks.

            • I believe that. I have seen pictures of hundreds and hundreds of white vehicles parked on closed airport runways. Cool sight to see in some ways. This could all be a part of w recent mass arrest that has been going on. 1200 arrests reported so far, mostly criminal organizations (they could have had huge success in DC) and gang bangers. Heard a little about that this morning.

              Don’t know about you, but having Blackhawks flying around our cities is a bit unnerving. Why chance an accident when they can use military bases for this stuff. To me it’s just an accident waiting to happen, which could cause economic damage to a local business or kill people in an apartment complex. Is it worth the chance of such actions?

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                You find having “Blackhawk’s” flying around a city…try this, I’ve posted this before. Behind my old house in NC there is/was a dairy. One weekend while the dairy was closed I was sitting on my patio enjoying the fine NC weather. Now to be honest we have lots of military overflights but they just pass through. However this day, there was obviously more than one and they were hanging around. Through the trees, I spotted an OH-58 helicopter. Just showing the dome above the trees. Then a flight of at least 6 Cobras simulated a rocket attack upon the dairy. Mind you this was in a residential neighborhood. Occassionally the Marine recon teams will “attack” our waterfront. During the 2000’s especially after 9/11 all military convoys traveled full armed. Each vehicle with a gun in place and pointed at each point of the clock and NOT in the air. But “AT” something like your car.

                Every couple days a CH-47 medical transport flies over the city. I do not mean like at a decent altitude. It is usually no more than 100ft above the trees. The compression is amazing. you think your house is going to be shaken apart. They make their deliveries probably to Greenville and then return. They could go up the river with little disturbance and very little flight deviation at no risk to patients on board from delay.

                There are plenty of emergency fields in the area. Harriers use them all the time for practice to get away from the populated areas.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Gman

                I live in north Idaho man. We have UNMARKED Blackhawks around here all the time.

                Remember all the ruckus back in the 90’s about those “Black” Helicopters. Congressman Helen Chenowith mentioned them in public back east and was ridiculed. Then one day while in a meeting with many others an unmarked “Black” helicopter was seen hovering across the street, facing the building where the meeting was occurring. Good ol’ Helen, she got the last laugh.

                But out there they are very real. Most of the time they are DEA running surveillance for Pot Farms and checking for illegals sneaking in from Canada. Others have markings hard to see and come from the various military bases nearby.

                When President Obama spoke in Missoula, MT there were no fewer than SIX unmarked Blackhawks that lifted off and flew from the stadium where he appeared to the airport. All, or all but one were decoys.

              • Didn’t know Idaho to be an overly unlawful State requiring lots of that kind of thing. I did drive through Idaho for a bit, traveling East from Oregon, nice country. I actually thought you were more from Montana, but hey, your a potato head now, LMAO!

                I can see the Blackhawks doing Prez security in odd areas, makes sense. Beyond that, it sure seems that our government is getting too militarized. Kristallnact comes to mind.

  29. What I do not understand, is why there is this push to be like Europe…..the Europe experiment is failing miserably. There are several countries in the EU with more restrictive imigration policies than the US…..Denmark and Sweden for example…..no more Muslims unless they sponsored. Germany is trying to disolve the Muslim communities because no one is assimilating. Same with Belgium and Spain.

    • Colonel, American Liberals have an inferiority complex. Always have. I suspect they are descendents of Tories. The rugged individualist, backwoods, common-sense, plain spoken, American embarrasses them. They seek to emulate the effete European aristocracy and the sheep they lead.

      I think back on how smart the grandfather was to bail on that Continent in 1905. With a minimal education but with profound common sense he saw nothing there, no future. .

      I’ve argued the point time and time again and the best that I can come up with is that I have no desire to emulate a continent that twice in the last 100 years initiated Mass Murder on a scale that dwarfed anything in the previous 6,000 years of human history.

      I am a simple guy but it does seem to me that when the “European intellectuals” devised humanist culture and philosophy to replace religion based ones, they took the human propensity for evil to warp speed.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        It was not so much replacing a religion based with a “humanist” based as much as replacing the “individualism” and cause of “reason, of the Enlightenment, with Socialism and selflessness. The ethic of “altruism”.

        Remember, this new age view was growing in Europe about the time our Founders built America on the Enlightenment viewpoint. Immigrants brought the Virus to the USA from that point forward.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The Enlightenment viewpoint did not deny the likely existence of a Creator. In fact, it was a generally held belief. Humanism and the associated agnostic/atheistic viewpoint is what begat Socialism and selfishness. JAC and SK are sort of saying the same things in different ways here.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Peter

            Yes, kind of but not exactly. It seems to me the socialists are more responsible for the atheist movement rather than the other way around. Because the “religious” institutions were more consistent with the Individual Rights of the Enlightenment at the time. At least the Protestants and one fella who went by St.

            Oh the Irony that now those institutions preach for Socialism and Altruism at the expense of Self. Meanwhile the “atheists” can’t figure our what is real as they are found on both the socialist and individualist sides of the argument.

            My bigger point is that it is not the loss of Religion as the source of moral code that is our problem. It is the loss of the code tied to the notion of Free Will and Individual Liberty. In the olden days these could be found mixed together maybe more than today.

            Now this idea was lost because it did not have time to become deeply rooted. The European Philosophers were undermining it while the ink was drying on the Constitution. Our failure to deal with slavery without fighting a Civil War contributed as well, in my opinion.

            Imagine if the south had no reason to secede because the Liberty they claimed had never been undermined in the name of eliminating Slavery. Or the North which came to view Liberty as a rationalization for Slavery. If the issue had been resolved in 1787 the Nation could have focused on our founding principles instead of fighting over slaves.

            But alas, we will never know.

  30. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Reasons why a “carbon tax” is profoundly stupid:

    You will hear virtually every “environmentalist” (and, hence, most Democrats) calling for a “carbon tax”. First of all, this is a misnomer. They don’t want to tax “carbon” per se. They want to tax fuels which generate CARBON DIOXIDE when they are combusted. Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are, (hopefully clearly) 2 totally different things.

    Carbon is a solid element that can take the form of Coal, Graphite, or Diamond, depending on exactly how the carbon atoms are arranged. Carbon Dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas that we happen to exhale (and is also produced by the COMBUSTION of carbon-containing molecules known as hydrocarbons (carbon and hydrogen bonded together) from methane (1 carbon) up to oil (many, many carbons).

    By the way, as most of you know, we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, while plant life inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. Nice, eh??

    A further aside – the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth is 400PPM currently. Below 250PPM, plant life starves nearly to death, regardless of moisture and temperature. Most greenhouses pump in carbon dioxide so that the concentration inside the greenhouse is in the 2500-5000PPM range. Plants LOVE that!!!

    Ok… back to my main point, which I haven’t even begun to make yet. The supposed reason that “environmentalists” want a carbon tax is that there is a “social cost of carbon” associated with “global warming” (or “climate change” as they now seem to prefer to call it.

    In order to properly calculate HOW MUCH TO TAX “CARBON” you would have to be able to calculate the CURRENT “social cost”. Currently, no such social cost exists. It cannot be demonstrated. If you disagree, then pray tell us how YOU would calculate it as a current social cost!

    “Environmentalists” argue that it entails a FUTURE social cost which will affect our children and grandchildren. OK, several problems with that. First of all, you would have to calculate the FUTURE COSTS of “carbon” vs. the FUTURE BENEFITS (the “environmentalist” will, per force, ignore any potential future benefits or will deny that any exist, but they are still critical to the actual calculation). Further, there is no proof whatsoever that any such future costs will exist at all! 100 years from now, we might be 2C warmer, or we might be 2C colder and be on the verge of another 100,000 year-long ice age!! The “environmentalist” will claim that “global warming theory” “proves” that the earth will warm AT LEAST 2C by 2100. The meteorologist cannot predict the weather 3 days in advance, but we are supposed to believe that “climate scientists” have nailed down that the only possibility for climate 100 years from now is definitively warmer by at least 2C.

    Yeah Right.

    So, you cannot calculate current social costs (because there aren’t any) and you cannot calculate future social costs (because they are unknowable until they happen… or they DON’T).

    Lastly, if we are expected to pay a CURRENT TAX to OFFSET FUTURE SOCIAL COSTS, should we then expect the Government to “set that money aside for the future” so that it WILL actually offset future social costs??? How did that work out with Social Security and Medicare??? If my dad put hundreds of thousands into paying Medicare and Social Security taxes during his lifetime, why are MY CURRENT TAXES PAYING FOR HIS CURRENT BENEFITS???? What happened to all of the money that HE ALREADY PAID INTO THE SYSTEM??? (Hint: the politicians spent it on something else… no doubt for “the greater good!”).

    So, the next time you hear someone calling for a “carbon tax”, call them a complete moron. Don’t bother trying to explain WHY they are a complete moron… they would never “get it” anyway, even if you explained it).

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Peter

      Those estimates made to date do not use the complete analytical method you mention. They only deal with the “social” costs which have not been quantified in other benefit/cost analysis.

      So the method used, to date, focuses on estimating the “costs” of not just CO2 but all the other emissions from burning fossil fuels. They have estimates for respiratory disease, for example.

      To make this brief and to the point, such analysis are based on miles and miles of assumptions. Much like those used to support the Affordable Care Act, only on steroids.

      And the only numbers I have seen were produced by the hard core Green Groups and their associates. The Natural Resource Defense Council being a prime player. That would be Bobby Kennedy Jr. and his play group.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        The key is, according to the datasets, there has been no demonstrable change in “global average temperature” for over 18 years now. For people born in 1998, they have never experienced ANY “global warming” whatsoever. Further, there has been no demonstrable linkage between burning of fossil fuels and respiratory diseases. They cannot really even demonstrate CORRELATION, much less, actual CAUSE (and remember, correlation is NOT causation). As such, any claims of being able to calculate a current “social cost of carbon” is complete nonsense.

        Also, we already tax the hell out of “carbon” anyway. Fuel taxes on gasoline alone already account for about 30% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. How much more “should” it be taxed? Oil, coal, and natural gas are already taxed quite heavily as well.

        Over the past 18 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 15% and yet the global average temperature has been steady over that entire 18 year period, so there isn’t even a correlation of CO2 and temperature. Correlation is not causation, but a complete LACK of correlation would also indicate that causation isn’t even a remote possibility.

        Lastly, you are far more likely to get a respiratory disease by burning wood and dung to heat your home than you are by using electricity or natural gas to heat your home. If the environmentalists REALLY cared about eliminating respiratory diseases on a global scale, they would spend trillions of dollars providing cheap, abundant energy in the form of electricity and natural gas to all “3rd world” countries, rather than wasting it on “climate change research”.

        Also, the trillions of dollars spent so far on “climate change research” have all been misdirected. If, as Secretary Kerry and President Obama claim, “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made and dangerous” (a thoroughly debunked statistic, by the way), then research money should be going to THINGS THAT WOULD MITIGATE OR SOLVE THE PROBLEM such as hydrogen fusion generators. Instead, the research money keeps going to studies which merely attempt to characterize the problem, rather than studies that would provide actual SOLUTIONS.

        If trillions of dollars were directed to the development of a working hydrogen fusion generator, (which would produce NO CO2 whatsoever while producing ABUNDANT energy), the whole problem could probably be solved within half a generation.

    • Yes, I agree they are morons. I would like to see some serious lawsuits if and when any of these taxes are passed into law. Watching them try to prove the need for the tax would be a hoot.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Gman

        Congress does not need to produce any evidence of need what so ever to pass a NEW tax on Carbon. Not unless it infringes upon some other Right or Constitutional limit that has not already been eroded.

        • Not all taxes come from Congress. Has anyone actually tried to sue them? I don’t recall any such suits, but that don’t mean it has or hasn’t been tried. I also wonder, since taxes are to “fund” the government, how a tax that doesn’t fund government, such as a carbon tax would be, how it would be acceptable by most of the people who have to pay the new found reason for theft.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            According to the Constitution, all Federal taxes are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives. Any tax that did not originate in the House SHOULD be deemed unconstitutional, although, to my knowledge, that has not happened.

            • Quite true. However, California’s carbon tax that has been applied to each gallon of gasoline purchased took affect recently.

              If I’m not mistaken, the current Affordable Healthcare Act originated in the Senate, which, at the time the “fine” was not a tax. Then it was changed to a tax by SCOTUS, despite what you have raised.

            • Much the same as immigration and the BS with the Iranians, these things are supposed to be beyond the scope of the Executive to implement.

              The absolutely gelded Congress and its leaders have just allowed their powers to erode preferring the powerful executive. Ahh, we are in the last days of the Republic. Who is our Cicero though?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Unfortunately, our Cicero is a suburb of Chicago, so we basically have no hope!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Unfortunately, if most people are convinced that we are doing it “for the children” then all rationality goes right out the window and anyone challenging the taxes on a rational basis will simply be characterized as “evil” and “in the pocket of ‘big oil”. There never was much rationality and logic in politics to begin with, and now there is virtually none at all. Appeals to emotion are far more powerful than reason and logic.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Peter B.

          Is this what you had in mind?

          http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/health/obama-climate-change-public-health/index.html

          Notice how they got National exposure of their theories without having to prove a damn thing. And they are going to enlist all the health care workers to pound us bigoted morons up side the head on a daily basis. I doubt 2% of them will have the smarts to question the assumptions they are fed as “irrefutable fact”.

          • But, it is fun to talk with them..and then make fun of them. I have not found very many people that know anything about global warming, or climate change, except for talking points. And the funny point, academia knows even less. I like to listen to my uncle who is a nuclear physicist and an astro physicist as well…..dual phd’s…..he feels that there is no real proof since, in his studies, he told me that the ice caps and such that everybody is worried about is hog wash…they come and they go. There is no base line in which to actually test things. Most of the things that you read and hear is speculation. He also has recorded several things as an astro physicist and he can tie global climate changes to celestrial chages. He also debunks carbon footprinting and the like.

            So, what the hell…he has also said that fear is a great factor,,,,,and fear the unknowing.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Precisely, JAC, that is exactly the kind of junk I am talking about.

            Most people don’t realize it, but the EPA gives HUGE grants to entities like the American Lung Association, who then uses that money to sue the EPA, saying that the regulations of industry by the EPA are not strict enough. The EPA then settles the suit by agreeing to implement even more strict regulations by a certain time.

            Most people aren’t even aware of this cozy little relationship.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Peter

              And the “settlement” includes the agency paying the legal fees of the entity which sues them.

              Same relationship exists with numerous environmental groups and other Not for Profit organizations. And believe me, their sympathizers within the agencies understand it and have no problem using them to force changes they want, and to pump money to their friends.

        • Peter, what do you think of this guy? He writes stuff I seem to be able to understand.

          http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/16/a-level-look-at-sea-levels/#sthash.y1m2sFpu.dpbs

          Here are his creds. The comments are particularly good.

          http://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/#sthash.hIOW8hKz.dpbs

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I like Pierre Gosselin. I find that, in general, the majority of global warming skeptics present logical, scientifically based arguments to refute the “facts” presented by the so-called climate scientists. The so-called climate scientists generally present ad-hominem attacks to refute the evidence presented by the skeptics.

            I tend to agree with Freeman Dyson. The so-called greenhouse effect exists, but it is pretty damn negligible in the grand scheme of the climate. The Sun and the Oceans (and their interactions) control 99.999% of the climate.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    The Comics will not be posted on the front page each day………… double standard much?

    Opening sentence to HP article criticizing Rand Paul for taking on an interviewer yesterday. Most of the left wing blogs and new media are hammering on Paul today.

    “WASHINGTON — If Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to be considered a serious presidential candidate, he’s going to have to learn how to handle tough questions about his record without coming across as condescending.”

  32. Checking in! Still recovering from a wild and fun weekend in Indy, the state of religious freedom where, while I did not see protesters, saw many restaurant workers and signage elsewhere stating, “We Serve All”. Whatever.

    Still very, very disappointed. It will take awhile to accept that being #2 is a good thing. Already so tired of the media and their messaging. I love how we recruit and build our teams. We don’t “rent a player” and typically, Duke doesn’t either and if calling teams out that do that is wrong, so be it. Yes, we have a lot of white players. If USA Today is really concerned about this, they might want to really look at why there is disparity in college basketball…..on the all black teams. NCAA sticks its nose into a lot of things, except GPA parity and race. Imagine. KY player says F** the N** under his breath towards Kaminsky at press conference and the pundits – and his coach – say it was just a cultural thing and no biggie, no punishment. Kaminsky says “NO” as an answer and he’s ripped that it was too short and not his finest moment. Perhaps he should have come back with F** the N** as his response just to see the media faint.

    And the head of NCAA refs says the review tape didn’t have the same angle available to review as the entire nation did on TV? BS.

    Love that we had 3 starters from Wisconsin. Duke = zero from NC. It is a state-wide pride thing. I have the added benefit of having tickets behind the bench and athletic office tickets are around us where the recruits sit. We’ve known the Dekkers since Sam was a Sophomore when they’d come sit in those seats. Feel so bad for those guys to work so hard, have so much fun doing it and then not getting the trophy.

    I think it was before the KY game, one of our players was asked by a pundit if they were intimidated by KY’s something like 7 McD’s All Americans. He replied, not really, we have 5 Wisconsin players of the year on our roster. LOL! Love it!

    Gotta run – lots to catch up on after a long weekend of honky tonkying in Nashville followed by the Indy trip. Catch y’all later…..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Kathy,

      I hope you enjoyed your time in my neck of the woods! Over Easter weekend, I was spending my time visiting family in Wisconsin! 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If Frank Kaminsky had said “F*** that N****** about ANY of the Kentucky players, there would have been IMMEDIATE demands that he be suspended from the championship game, expelled from the school, and prevented from being drafted by any and all teams in the NBA.

      Nothing whatsoever will happen to the Kentucky kid that used the same exact words when talking about Frank. Gotta love the double standards in this world.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      You forgot the refereeing in general……..it sucked in the second half.

      The refs took away the one thing Wisconsin needed to win late in the game. The ability to defend the basket without getting called for fouls. The fouls, along with stupid TV commercial time outs, broke the momentum Wisconsin had when they went up by 9.

      The two halves were refereed entirely differently. That is NOT good referee work. Duke’s coach made a half hearted crack at the refs for the first half. They made up for it in the second. Very similar to what we saw in the Duke/Gonzaga game.

      Wisconsin made some mistakes that cost them in the end, but great teams can overcome those mistakes if they don’t have one hand tied behind their back.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Seems the cash part is a bit of a reach for all used items…but the overall intent is valid. Last year a law was also passed here that is very similar. Cash is not an issue. However at scrap metal dealers it is very much enforced. If the material brought in even remotely looks like scrap from a house, ie A/C parts, copper pipes, wiring you will be scrutinized very seriously with a lot of hoops to go through. You absolutely will have to provide documents permitting the salvage from the owners of the property etc. Your photo will be take. All the aforementioned documents in the article of identification will be scanned and put in a system. We have so many second vacation homes here and rentals of property stripping the houses is a serious problem. Scrapping fairly normal things it’s no problem but they will scan your D/L for id and take your plate #. You are paid in cash to the nearest $.

      • Scrap yards here do the same thing. However, from reading the article, it seems that the law is FORCING business’s to do law enforcement work without compensation. They simply passed the buck, but not the bucks, LOL. I would find this law unacceptable. If I remember correctly, this was originally aimed at getting taxes from garage sales. In short, it’s about taxes and revenue, not stolen property. It’s getting worse everyday with these government types. Yet, we still have the government lovers, even on this site, who seem to be blind to their actions. This may require an article on the subject. It’s causing the lives of people who are confronted by cops, over nothing more than some piddly revenue generating law. Bunch of damn thieves in suits.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Permanant garage sales are a business and a different class. Towns allocate specific days/weekends and alternate rain days as generally freebies to get rid of unused or outgrown items.

          Where I lived in Italy they had a tradition around New Years. Everything that you did not want anymore was put out in the street. Everyone walked up and down the street and took what they wanted. By morning the street was clear. It was a big swap party…tired housewifes and old girlfriends were not part of the swapping. At least publically

          All these government actions will drive more business underground and into a black market.

          Rue the day when you have to itemize and account for your cash withdrawals from your bank.

          I just went through a two week period of nothing but cash. My debit/credit card was jeopardized. Luckily the bank caught the improbable transactions at a CVS in Los Angeles for a large chunk of money and blocked it. Given I had just used it in NC.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I will have to look at the law as a reaction to the sad economics of the country. While I was still working I’d overhear associates laughing about the sad state of people and why or who would steal miles of “copper” wire from communication links. I’d usually walk over to their desks and ask them when was the last time you had to worry about food on the table. Most notably the associates did NOT have a clue about what was going on in the countries themselves. Like a full scale revolution, where the copper was used to make bullets due to arms embargos. People stealing to sell for money to buy food, you name it. In some countries it was due to US civilized advanced countries embargoing the very things the people needed to live, like timber in the rain forest. One tree at fair value would keep a family well fed for years. Make it valueless and whole forests were burned. Now the case is bio-fuels, not one peep from the enviros about the decimation of the forests to grow sugar cane for fuel…not food.>>>>stupid stupid stupid.

      Used to be a huge trade in lead keels on sailboats to South America. No reason for it to not be continuing due to no change in the social unrest. Making a piece of electronics weigh more to get through customs in Nicaragua. The engineers didn’t get that the country needed lead for either side to prosecute their agenda.

      • What is sad is that those duly elected are a large part of the problem, if not THE problem. Yet, people still vote and wonder why the problems continue. Think of Ferguson Mo, who just had an election. Because two blacks were elected to office, people actually think things will change. Nothing will change. The revenue generating theft will continue, blacks will continue to commit crimes at a much higher rate than whites, and get shot more often, causing more riots and bullshit. People are stupid, they will blame racism, or some other ism or phobe that the media shoves down their ignorant throats. It’s the culture, not the skin color. The culture of believing that voting for someone somehow makes you free, when it just makes you subjugated to the whims of those elected. One day, maybe, people will wake up. That will happen when only a few are left because of the stupidity of those who were elected, voted for by the slightly more stupid brainwashed sheople who demand to be subjugated and led, like the last bastards they have become.

        Thanks, I needed that rant 😀

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          So what are you trying to say?

          Most true liberals I know really believe that “benevolant” dictatorships are great. They’re just so efficient. The messy things like gaining concensus and congresses are a waste. I doubt in our lifetime we’ll ever see another “constitutional ammendment” We’ll just see the continued bastardization of the constitution by Congress and the courts.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    I saw an SUV with different markings today than I have seen before. The word POLICE was on the fender along with Federal Protective Service and a DHS sticker/logo.

    So I looked them up and here is what I found. Two points. I did not know we had a Federal entity called POLICE outside the Park Police in DC. Most other Fed. agencies have LEO’s within the name of their agency. Also take a look at the mission statement. One thing popped out to me that is a little beyond all the other statements about protecting federal buildings and employees. That was the role in sharing “intelligence” among local, state, federal and tribal entities. The statement on intelligence gathering and sharing seemed odd in that it was much broader than all the other statements.

    I now wonder if this organization is involved in intelligence “gathering” which avoids the scrutiny aimed at the NSA, CIA and FBI. Not making claims, just wondering.

    https://www.dhs.gov/topic/federal-protective-service

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      FYI, this agency uses WHITE vehicles with a blue diagonal stripe on each side.

      • Surprised you didn’t know about them. Just another armed alphabet agency that has a special place in the Federal control system coming into being. It just isn’t here quite yet.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    This should raise your blood pressure. I picked up a short book yesterday; Free Will, by Sam Harris. The testimony inside the jacket reads:

    “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it. In Free Will, Sam Harris combines neuroscience and psychology to lay this illusion to rest at last. Like all of Harris’s books, this one will not only unsettle you but make you think deeply. Read it: you have no choice.”——- Jerry a. Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, and author of Why Evolution Is True.

    Mr. Harris is also the author of The End of Faith.

    Also in the jacket is this statement: “In this enlightening book, Sam Harris argues that this truth about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom.”

    So the claim is that one of the most fundamental concepts tied to our moral and ethical code is FALSE but discarding it will not undermine the very moral and ethical principles that rest on the concept of Free Will.

    • If there is no free will, I am bound to read the book.
      If there is free will, I will not be bound to read the book.

      I won’t be reading the book. I’ve had dialogue with others about this “there is no free will”, but the root of it is, if there isn’t, you wouldn’t be debating it, so there must be free will if you want to debate it.

      Further, the science that “proves” there is no free will doesn’t actually show that at all, but that’s another story.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        Actually, from what I have read so far your last statement is the most relevant to his claim. So it is THE story, not another one. 🙂

        The guy is trying to argue that the time delay between your brain activating and your “awareness” that your brain already acted shows that YOU are not in charge.

        I guess our brains are running the show, and WE are just along for the ride. The word ABSURD was the first thing I thought of, or was told to think I thought, when reading the first few pages.

        I do find it interesting how so many “scientists” and “philosophers” and “pundits” are working so hard to show that humans do not have free will, or worse. do not rely on REASON to survive.

        I cannot figure where they think they are going with this line of argument. If this is true, then WHO should be in charge? It can’t be any other humans because they have the same defect. Unless of course we are going to see the growth of a new theory that CERTAIN humans have the capacity to THINK while most of us do not. Rationalizing that CERTAIN humans must therefore care for the sheep.

        • “The guy is trying to argue that the time delay between your brain activating and your “awareness” that your brain already acted shows that YOU are not in charge” And if you investigate the study that did this experiment, you will find the claims about “no free will” are exaggerated (what else is new?) In a small sample (problem there) they hooked up the sensors, and in less than 60% of the cases did they “know” what the person would do before they did it, or just above a flip of a coin. This study is used to enforce the entire claim of “absolutely NO free will”…. instead of, “well, we were barely better then a blind luck guess”.

        • The guy is trying to argue that the time delay between your brain activating and your “awareness” that your brain already acted shows that YOU are not in charge”

          And if you investigate the study that did this experiment, you will find the claims about “no free will” are exaggerated (what else is new?)

          In a small sample (problem there) they hooked up the sensors, and in less than 60% of the cases did they “know” what the person would do before they did it, or just above a flip of a coin.

          This study is used to enforce the entire claim of “absolutely NO free will”…. instead of, “well, we were barely better then a blind luck guess”.

  35. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The most liberal couple I know loved Sarajevo, saying it is such a fine example of how people can get along and obvious success of socialism. This was just after Tito died and 40 years of his “benevolent” dictatorship and before the whole damn place blew up when all the repressed hated, bigotries and envy were unleashed. They are staunch supporters of our leader regardless of what he does. They never debate logically anymore and when you try with facts and data, they instantly go to name calling, like are you “F!!!!!!” stupid.

  36. Dale A Albrecht says:

    “USA Today” banner headline. “Japan feels that Americans are lazy and dishonest” Even as bad as our economy is, it still kicks the life out of Japan because we DO NOT think monolithically. You’d think that Japan would be doing better especially in the asian markets. Unfortunately most asians probably have long memories over the atrocities commited by Japan over those they deemed lessor beings from the 20’s until defeat in ’45

    If it’s really the political class they’re commenting on then there is no argument from me.

    • Japan is right. Most people are lazy and stupid, that’s why this nation is a mess.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Japan is totally homogenious and completely subscribes to group think.
        When in a high tech business we beat the crap out of them in all measures…..20 years later, unfortunately, the corporation quit and sold out. They didn’t want to deal in a capital intensive business and also where retaining skilled employees was a must. As Bob Dylan wrote “The times are a’changin'” So I may be out of date.

        To naturalize to Japan is possible but very tough. 1st you have to do all the interviews and forms in fluent Japanese. Mostly you have to have some Japanese lineage. Same thing in Germany but getting tougher.

        • Japan is in trouble economically, just like us, except worse. China may be thinking about getting even for past issues. If they survive their Fukishima disaster that’s far worse than anyone is reporting.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            I was reading the NY Times May 1-15 1928. Japan was occupying Nanking and the world was all upset that Chaing was trying to dislodge them. Later in ’37 Japan murders 300,000 of the Nanking population. Grudges will be settled in time.

            Japan has got to be suffering the loss of energy from their shutting down their reactors. Especially when you have to import just about 100% of their energy and raw materials for manufacture.

            Germany is also feeling the error of their ways with the “Green” energy revolution. They’re waking up to 1) the noose around their necks by Russia and 2) their days are damn short for solar and 3) they’re finally accepting that there is no correlation between CO2 and global warming etal.

            Years ago after the fall of the soviet union and the iron curtai,n people asked where did all the communists go. The answer in Europe was into the “Green” parties.

      • Gman,
        Not quite.
        People are lazy; they want to spend the least amount of effort for the most gain.
        But people are NOT stupid.
        People act according to incentives.
        Most people act for short-term gain and do not measure long term costs. Their viewpoint is merely 30 seconds in front of their next step.

        If there is an incentive to do less work and still retain the same (or more) benefit, that is what people will do, and since they rarely calculate long term costs, if the incentive has a short term benefit, they will seize such first over long term benefits.

        The welfare society rises because of this.

        Work is a long term gain at the expense of short term (work instead of play). Welfare is a short term gain (pay to do nothing) at the expense of long term gain (increase productivity).

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    I see once again you simply avoid by accusing the other person of being dumb, stupid, ill informed, etc, etc.

    I did not ask myself the question. I asked YOU. Now lets see if you can address the question directly.

    HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS TRUE?

    • The Colonel answer……when I can see it…hear it…feel it…or touch it…..therein lies the certainty.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Good morning me Texican friend. Hope all is well at your homestead this AM.

        Now……..”cetainty” huh! Are you sure???

        Is the dress blue and black or white and gold? 😉

        http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/27/the-dress-blue-black-white-gold-vision-psychology-colour-constancy

        • JAC here is trying to ply a fallacy.
          It is not sufficient to claim that our senses are incomplete in measuring reality. Our senses do measure reality even if incomplete.

          To claim, more clearly, that because we cannot see infra-red means reality cannot be discerned is empirically false. We can see more of reality by building tools to aid us, but this does not dismiss that what we see and sense is not reality.

          Do not fall into the trap of incompleteness = false.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Another projection.

            My example is: Incompleteness = Not certainty

            And it also addresses the issue of “perceptions” when used to argue what is True and False. Which in turn is part of the issue of dealing with concepts in different languages (linguistics).

            • Not true.
              Incompleteness provides certainty up to the point it is incomplete

              I know my keyboard is “there” because of my incomplete senses, but I am utterly certain it is there regardless. I may not perceive the match burning under my desk as I do not see infra-red, but the certainty of the keyboard remains absolute.

      • The 4th requirement – Empiricism – is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

        A fact is not the same as understanding the fact.

        Saying “A rock weighs 10 tons” maybe a true, hence a fact, but understanding why gravity manifested such a fact requires more understanding that is part of the the 3 other necessary axioms.

    • JAC

      Ask yourself the question, you will get merely go into brain freeze, since you have no methodology from which to pursue your answer.

      You are much like the man who declares that the scientific method is NOT the foundation of science, then asks “how do you know gravity exists vs. the hand of God?”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        I do not deny that the scientific method is a foundation of science. However, there is some science that does not use the method precisely. Much of the environmental sciences for example. Thus the answers from that “science” are suspect. Like the climate “science”.

        The word Foundation has different meaning and application than the word Axiom. As explained in the definitions of Axiom and in the Stanford article you posted.

        You are projecting here. Placing claims on my statements which I did not make.

        The scientific method is a “method” of evaluation. Axiomatic arguments are a “method” of evaluation. Not all evaluations use “axioms”.

        You claiming that they are firm and irrefutable does not make it true, as evidenced by the broad range of criteria used in the field of Philosophy.

        • “I do not deny that the scientific method is a foundation of science.”

          The scientific method is AXIOMATIC to science. It is the methodology that defines science.
          You can use another methodology to investigate the universe, but you cannot call that “science”.

          The methodology itself is beyond proof.
          But as men, who are fallible, hence fallible in the use of the methodology, one cannot claim that it is “science” that is wrong. You say “men doing the science are wrong” when there is error.

          Foundational means “required for function”
          Axioms build the foundation.

          I did not confuse the two, you did.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            You most certainly have confused them. Apparently you are incapable of understanding this difference or simply so stuck on being correct you cannot move.

            Regardless, the argument over Axiom vs. Methodology or Axiom vs. Evaluation Criteria is now over.

            It has accomplished my goal, which was to show the audience that claiming concretes in Philosophy can get you in trouble unless you have a solid argument to support them.

            And simply claiming them as true without adequate explanation is not a solid argument.

            • “It has accomplished my goal, which was to show the audience that claiming concretes in Philosophy can get you in trouble unless you have a solid argument to support them.

              And simply claiming them as true without adequate explanation is not a solid argument.”

              There are concretes in Philosophy.
              I declared the methodology to be axiomatic, which has nothing to do with establishing proof since THAT IS WHAT AXIOMATIC MEANS

  38. You Go Paul! You Go Paul! 🙂 I’ve been waiting for years for a republican to do something like this.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/08/rand-paul-turns-the-typical-question-on-abortion-exceptions-around-in-the-most-amazing-way/

    • Now read this piece of crap article-notice how they didn’t actually cover How he answered the question-and how they claim he’s been testy with everyone but somehow when it came to a woman reporter he was testy because she was a woman.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-first-official-day-on-the-trail-rand-paul-turns-a-prickly-performance/2015/04/08/2be3a326-de35-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

      • Women can apparently stand on their own two feet except when they cannot because……they are women!?

        When Rick Lazio ran against Hillary for the Senate seat from NY he did not have much of a chance to begin with. The die was cast however when the media decided that he “threatened” or was “threatening” to Mrs. Clinton by moving into her “space” during the debate. Guess they thought the Neanderthal was gonna slug her.

    • Thought about you when I saw the video yesterday. Refreshing isn’t it? Don’t know about the other guys, but Fox is anti Paul. Was disappointed in Megan Kelly for a rude interview with him. It’s going to be interesting. Between Paul and Cruz the media better put their big kid pants on, they’re not going to know what hit them.

      • True…..but neither one of them has a chance in hell……Paul is going yo have to change from a libertarian mindset…….it scares the complacent.

        • I was thinking Cruz has a pretty good chance.

        • Rand Paul is not a libertarian. His foreign policy is no different then what is at play.
          He is no different in any substantial way to anyone one else trying to get his ass in the Big Chair.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            I disagree. However the distinctions may amount to differences without meaningful affect.

            Paul supported the negotiations with Iran, arguing for them back in 2007. His problem now is dealing with the what do you do now that Iran is kicking over beehives in the Mid. East.

            His legs have gone wobbly.

            I happen to think his foreign policy might look close to Mr. Obama’s. And there in lies the problem with his “electability” in the elephant primary.

      • Fox is not always what you think it is. Take Charles Krauthamer. He is almost always identified as a conservative but if you investigate his stands on the Social issues, not so conservative, not at all. He tends to fall into that neo-con camp. Not to say I don’t agree with him a great deal, I do but beware.

        Paul is way too different for these folks who would still like to fight the Cold War, or maybe a hot one.

  39. There is a new thread up and running 🙂

%d bloggers like this: