Deductive Reasoning

[bigheadfred]

With all due respect, (and that is great, sieur!) Trump derives from and belongs largely to the meritocracy, not the bureaucracy/big-government oligarchy. Business people must constantly test their suppositions about the Will of the People they serve with reality. That is light years removed from hyper-intellectual professors who see themselves as Nietzache's ubermenches whose duty and privilege is to stand outside the effects and influences of their epic decisions and rule the world at arm's length.

Trump could have retired with his billions and enjoyed life, but he chose to become the chief executive of the USA. If the vice-presidency is a "warm bucket of spit" then the presidency must be a molten steel enema. For anyone who takes on that job willingly (and it's actually two jobs, first the political job of campaigning successfully then governing successfully) my hat is off.

I'm willing to give the veck a chance. Much as I would prefer that he get hit by a meteor and let Pence do his magic. 

I think  the hoopla will die out in the coming months. It depends on who is funding the hate. Hate is something that is hard to sustain for extended periods. Most people, in this digital age, have the attention span of a two-year old.  Be nice to see trump go after Soros.

[Hondo69]

When you believe in things
You don't understand
You will suffer

   Stevie Wonder

[EC]

The reverse also applies.

You are perfectly free to not believe in alligators - even when they are biting your ass.

[LateForLunch]

The reverse also applies.

You are perfectly free to not believe in alligators - even when they are biting your ass.

Also recalls a line from the fine feature film with Anthony Hopkins, The Rite: "Refusing to believe in the existence of Satan will not protect one from him."

[Hondo69]

The reverse also applies.

You are perfectly free to not believe in alligators - even when they are biting your ass.

 

Good point.  One that brings up a little side corollary to a theory of mine.

Say you took human history and dumped it into a Cray supercomputer.  Could you ask the computer a few basic questions, let it crunch the numbers, and spit out an answer based upon pure logic?  Seems like you could.

For example: what percentage of human beings prefer slavery over freedom?

I don't think we'd like the answer spit out by the computer.

[EC]

Good point.  One that brings up a little side corollary to a theory of mine.

Say you took human history and dumped it into a Cray supercomputer.  Could you ask the computer a few basic questions, let it crunch the numbers, and spit out an answer based upon pure logic?  Seems like you could.

For example: what percentage of human beings prefer slavery over freedom?

I don't think we'd like the answer spit out by the computer.

Don't need a Cray for that. It's 100%. As long as the slaves are not them.

[Bigun]

Don't need a Cray for that. It's 100%. As long as the slaves are not them.

Most of us are slaves today and don't even realize it!

Look up the word slavery in the dictionary!

When the government or anything other than yourself has a priority claim to the fruits of your labor what does that make you?

[LateForLunch]

Most of us are slaves today and don't even realize it!

Look up the word slavery in the dictionary!

When the government or anything other than yourself has a priority claim to the fruits of your labor what does that make you?

Hah hah well, were heading into ontology (the study of what is knowable). GI Gurdjieff believed that most people spend most of their lives functioning like half-conscious automatons (or poorly-programmed computers in the lingo of today). He believed that all discussion of morality/ ethics/politics was by nature futile until a certain prerequisite level of self-awareness could be achieved. If one's behavior is determined by serving the needs of an illusory ego-sense instead of real, objective shared goals, trying to get people to cooperate in joint ventures is an exercise in foolishness and folly.

[Bigun]

Hah hah well, were heading into ontology (the study of what is knowable). GI Gurdjieff believed that most people spend most of their lives functioning like half-conscious automatons (or poorly-programmed computers in the lingo of today). He believed that all discussion of morality/ ethics/politics was by nature futile until a certain prerequisite level of self-awareness could be achieved. If one's behavior is determined by serving the needs of an illusory ego-sense instead of real, objective shared goals, trying to get people to cooperate in joint ventures is an exercise in foolishness and folly.

A fellow by the name of Jean Jacques Rousseau was writing about that sort of thing long before GI was ever thought of!

[LateForLunch]

A fellow by the name of Jean Jacques Rousseau was writing about that sort of thing long before GI was ever thought of!

Well, that's true, except that JJR was utterly and completely insane. Gurdjieff was a Christian mystic and an avowed anti-Communist who was IMO vastly more intellectually adept than Rousseau.

Rousseau's life was profiled in the book "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson. He was a perfect example of someone who is divorced from their own instincts and spiritual nature. Rousseau was largely a walking disaster area as a human being. The term "loyalty" was apparently foreign to his basic nature since he treated human beings like furniture. He routinely abused his cloying benefactors and drove more than one of his wives/mistresses to suicide by his intolerant, arrogant abusive nature. 

He had a ton of intellect, but IMO very little real intelligence. He had some good ideas but then so do most of the posters on this forum. One need only examine the Reign of Terror to understand how Rousseau and other hyper-intellectuals steered Humanity down a Satanic Path in pursuit of (naturally) a Perfect World.

Rousseau was Voltaire without the compassionate nature and with more than-a-little psychopathic hatred for Humanity.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55302.Intellectuals

[Bigun]

Well, that's true, except that JJR was utterly and completely insane. Gurdjieff was a Christian mystic and an avowed anti-Communist who was IMO vastly more intellectually adept than Rousseau.

Rousseau's life was profiled in the book "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson. He was a perfect example of someone who is divorced from their own instincts and spiritual nature. Rosseau was a walking disaster area as a human being. He routinely abused his benefactors and drove more than one of his wives/mistresses to suicide by his intolerant, arrogant abusive nature. 

He had a ton of intellect, but IMO very little real intelligence. He had some good ideas but then so do most of the posters on this forum. One need only examine the Reign of Terror to understand how Rousseau and other hyper-intellectuals steered Humanity down a Satanic Path in pursuit of (naturally) a Perfect World.

Rousseau was Voltaire without the compassionate nature and with more than-a-little psychopathic hatred for Humanity.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55302.Intellectuals

Didn't say I was a follower or that I liked the guy!  But I'm pretty darned sure that folks like Marx and Engels did! 

Matter of fact, I agree completely with all that you wrote. 

[LateForLunch]

Didn't say I was a follower or that I liked the guy!  But I'm pretty darned sure that folks like Marx and Engels did! 

Matter of fact, I agree completely with all that you wrote.

You are wise. Hyper intellectuals like jackals or rats,  seem to be able to smell out their own kind and gravitate toward like-minded vermin.
Johnson's book was one of the major influences that fortified my own conservatism.  So many hyper-intellectuals who are revered by today's leftists were monstrous, self-adoring, sadistic swine. I forever lost any positive association with the term "intellectual" after reading Johnson's bios of that rogue's gallery of detached-from-reality freaks.

I much prefer Arthur Koestler's view (explained in his magnum opus "Ghost in the Machine") that the human cerebral cortex functions far more like a tumorous growth than anything which confers upon human beings anything even remotely resembling "superiority" as a species.

[EC]

I much prefer Arthur Koestler's view that the human cerebral cortex functions far more like a tumorous growth than anything which confers upon human beings anything even remotely resembling "superiority" as a species.

Well, if you look at it purely from a functional design standpoint, more intelligence and problem solving ability than is required to obtain food, avoid predators, and to breed successfully is a waste of resources. Seeing the beauty in a sunrise doesn't put potatoes in your stomach.

[Bigun]

Johnson's book was one of the major influences that fortified my own conservatism.  So many hyper-intellectuals who are revered by today's leftists were monstrous, self-adoring, sadistic swine. I forever lost any positive association with the term "intellectual" after reading Johnson's bios of that rogue's gallery of detached-from-reality freaks.

I much prefer Arthur Koestler's view (explained in his magnum opus "Ghost in the Machine") that the human cerebral cortex functions far more like a tumorous growth than anything which confers upon human beings anything even remotely resembling "superiority" as a species.

Karl Marx was such a fine upstanding person that he let his own children starve rather than work for a living!  That should tell us something!

[Bigun]

@LateForLunch

Thanks for the tip on the book!

I just ordered a used copy from Amazon.  $4.00 shipped to my door.

[LateForLunch]

Well, if you look at it purely from a functional design standpoint, more intelligence and problem solving ability than is required to obtain food, avoid predators, and to breed successfully is a waste of resources. Seeing the beauty in a sunrise doesn't put potatoes in your stomach.

I meant "superior" in a moral or larger sense of having more of a rightful entitlement to dominion.
In the line of thought you have taken, the life form that is most able to dominate over an ecosystem would be described as the superior one whereas it is only superior in the sense of propagating its DNA most efficiently in the biosphere and achieving the status as the top of the food chain.

The alien life forms presented in the original remake of "The Thing" (with Kurt Russell) or in the "Alien" series of films represent what happens when DNA develops to the point that the creatures it manifests in the biosphere are the ultimate Alpha Predators.

There is no moral component to DNA. DNA will readily condemn a creature to a life of agony or ecstasy without regard for anything except manifesting the characteristics which confer upon it the best chance of reproducing as the dominant species. DNA does not care how it accomplishes that task.

There are more species of wasps than any other insect (thousands), and that is because they have one of the most efficient methods of reproduction - they have the utterly disgusting proclivity to lay their eggs in the living bodies of hosts, and the larvae then feed on the host while it is still alive. Very efficient and completely barbaric. In fact the wasp was one of the animals upon which the xenomorph in the Alien movies was based.

There is a great old Outer Limits (Original Series) episode titled the "Keepers of Purple Twilight". The story is about a brilliant physicist who is offered an answer to a problem he is stuck on if he will simply allow an insect-like alien life form to "borrow" his emotions. The theme of the ultimate purpose of life and the question of what constitutes a "superior life form" is explored very nicely in that short episode. It may be viewed on YouTube or Hulu for free, I believe.

[bigheadfred]

Thrilled that we are talking about reason. Here is a website that provides popular news streams from both left and right leaning news sites. Consider sharing with both liberals and Conservatives alike!

Hey! @jpsb! Over here!

[anubias]

Where's humblegunner when you need him?

[Sanguine]

Thrilled that we are talking about reason. Here is a website that provides popular news streams from both left and right leaning news sites. Consider sharing with both liberals and Conservatives alike!
SPAM DELETED.

Keep in mind that this is a conservative website.  While we have a fair amount of "diversity" welcoming leftists isn't a goal. 

[anubias]

@Sanguine
@bigheadfred

You guys might want to delete his website from your quotes. 

[jpsb]

Keep in mind that this is a conservative website. 

NeverTrump is not necessarily conservative, just saying.

[Sanguine]

NeverTrump is not necessarily conservative, just saying.

Nor is #EverTrump. 

[Hondo69]

Unfortunately, I think Trump is going to be a transitional step, and not in the right direction.  The cult is there, frantically seeking a comic-book superhero.  Someone ready to take it to those n_ggers and deviants and those beaners and chinks and gooks who rip us off with all this **FREE TRADE** - someone who's gonna stand up for **WHITE AMERICA**.  I can just hear the jackboots clicking on the pavement - what's going to be our version of the Horst Wessel Song?

In my opinion a small percentage of Trump voters fall into the cult category.  During the campaign I was paying close attention as the cameras scanned the crowd.  It was not hard to spot those whose emotions were overflowing, an observer only had to look at a the faces.  Full out rock star mode is pretty easy to spot.

So they are definitely out there, I've seen them with my own eyes.  And if I had to assign a percentage my guess would be 15-20% of those in the crowd fell into the fanatic, cult category.  Which is pretty scary by itself.

On the other hand I understand those on the Right do not hesitate to criticize their own.  Bush was hammered mercilessly by many on the Right, including me, when we disagreed with his policies.  Politics, human beings, and most everything in life is not an all or none proposition.  Everything has good points and not so good points.  It's not a binary choice - but don't tell the media as it would ruin their marketing plans.

Now let's switch to the other side of the aisle and examine the cult followers on the Left.  Would it be fair to say 15-20% fall into the cult category?  That would mean the remaining percentage would criticize Obama on a routine basis when they had a disagreement with some of his policies.

The fact that we didn't hear a peep from the Left during eight years of Obama tells you pretty much all you need to know.  When it comes to cult behavior the Left is all in.  And if that doesn't scare the bejezus out of you then you've never picked up a history book in your life.

[LateForLunch]

In my opinion a small percentage of Trump voters fall into the cult category.  During the campaign I was paying close attention as the cameras scanned the crowd.  It was not hard to spot those whose emotions were overflowing, an observer only had to look at a the faces.  Full out rock star mode is pretty easy to spot.

So they are definitely out there, I've seen them with my own eyes.  And if I had to assign a percentage my guess would be 15-20% of those in the crowd fell into the fanatic, cult category.  Which is pretty scary by itself.

On the other hand I understand those on the Right do not hesitate to criticize their own.  Bush was hammered mercilessly by many on the Right, including me, when we disagreed with his policies.  Politics, human beings, and most everything in life is not an all or none proposition.  Everything has good points and not so good points.  It's not a binary choice - but don't tell the media as it would ruin their marketing plans.

Now let's switch to the other side of the aisle and examine the cult followers on the Left.  Would it be fair to say 15-20% fall into the cult category?  That would mean the remaining percentage would criticize Obama on a routine basis when they had a disagreement with some of his policies.

The fact that we didn't hear a peep from the Left during eight years of Obama tells you pretty much all you need to know.  When it comes to cult behavior the Left is all in.  And if that doesn't scare the bejezus out of you then you've never picked up a history book in your life.

Great post Indian fighter.

One notes that virtually all of the worst criticism of president Trump is "he could do" this, and "his administration may lead to" that. When one examines what has actually been done by this administration and compare it to the abiding, deep seated destructiveness of the left, it's sort of ludicrous to engage in speculative conjecture based largely on feelings and intuitions and call that "thinking". It's more akin to morbid rumination which one sees in people with anxiety disorders or proclivity to fatalism.

I understand that this sort of recurrent agonizing and rueful finger-shivering helps some to channel their feelings of loss, etc. But that being said I cannot discern much value to it in regard to any sort of political or ideological telesis.

[Sanguine]

Great post Indian fighter.

One notes that virtually all of the worst criticism of president Trump is "he could do" this, and "his administration may lead to" that. When one examines what has actually been done by this administration and compare it to the abiding, deep seated destructiveness of the left, it's sort of ludicrous to engage in speculative conjecture based largely on feelings and intuitions and call that "thinking". It's more akin to morbid rumination which one sees in people with anxiety disorders or proclivity to fatalism.

I understand that this sort of recurrent agonizing and rueful finger-shivering helps some to channel their feelings of loss, etc. But that being said I cannot discern much value to it in regard to any sort of political or ideological telesis.

I don't know about "feelings of loss", but I'll tell you why I remain on the fence about DJT: he is, at the very least until very recently, a part of the left that we all see as being a threat and we fear and loathe. There are also some personality and character issues that concern some of us. 

He has attempted to do some very significant, right things.  If the right things he does continue and show him to be a changed and matured man, then more power to him!  I absolutely support those efforts and give him due credit for doing so.  I love some of the things he has started or attempted to do.  Yaaaay, DJT!

I'm on the fence (which is an unusual position for me) but I just don't have enough evidence yet to jump down on one side or the other.  But, he's only three weeks into his term.  Let's give him some time.  So far, he's off to a great start. And, for the record, I hope fervently that he is what we hope he is and out-conservatives Reagan and Ike.