tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post397418427460234077..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: In defense of enlightenment: "science adviser" David Gelernter and the rise of anti-science intellectualismDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44800091243099696382018-06-25T09:10:19.770-07:002018-06-25T09:10:19.770-07:00I'm surprised to find you so reasonable and ce...I'm surprised to find you so reasonable and centrist--I've always heard you dismissed in SF&F fandom as a right-wing extremist.<br /><br />People on right and left have slandered empirical science since Plato slandered naturalist philosophers as sophists, and the stoics and Christians slandered the Epicureans and skeptics as libertines and relativists. It's always people who adhere to a classical rationalist metaphysics of essences, integers, and Boolean axiomatic logic (eg Plato / Aristotle) misinterpreting people with an Epicurean metaphysics of similarity, the continuum, pragmatic reason, and sensory observation. This is because:<br /><br />- Rationalists are always people trained exclusively in the humanities, nearly always with an extensive background in either classical or medieval studies (but always excluding the Hellenistic era). This is why you find today's weird alliance between radical Marxists, post-modernist relativists, professors from Oxbridge / U of Paris / the Ivies, and ultra-conservative neo-cons, Anglicans, and Catholics. They all have the same metaphysics, all easily traced back to Plato thru either Hegel or thru Catholic theology.<br /><br />- Rationalists know literally nothing about science, but think they know everything about science. This is because, as medievalists, they give priority to the most-ancient authorities--even in science. We see this in how contemporary philosophers and sociologists consider Aristotle to be the supreme authority on logic and science (see eg Searle's 1994 "Literary Theory and Its Discontents", in which Derrida denied the existence of 19th- and 20th-century logic by appealing to Aristotle); Hume to be the ultimate authority on British empiricism; Freud to be the ultimate authority on psychology; and Saussure to be the ultimate authority on linguistics.<br /><br />3. Rationalists can't understand what empiricists say, because rationalists see every question as a binary choice between two extremes. The ancient Greek skeptic says that one can't have absolute certainty about eternal universal logical propositions; the Platonist hears that and assumes the skeptic means one can have no knowledge about anything. The sociobiologist says that ethics are based in evolutionary psychology rather than in God; the Christian assumes that means they're arbitrary. The functionalists say grammar is not universal; Noam Chomsky assumes that implies the mind is a blank slate.<br /><br />4. Rationalists have traditionally denied their worst practices by pre-emptively accusing their opponents of doing the same thing, from Plato putting his own sophistic tricks in the mouths of "sophists" in the Euthydemus and then attacking them, to Stalin's practice of preventing discussion of his policies by accusing counter-revolutionaries of doing X just before he himself did X. The fact that most scientists today think they are "rationalists" is the clearest example of how successful rationalists have been at this.<br /><br />This underlying disagreement over metaphysics is more fundamental, constant, and important than disagreements over politics.<br /><br />You misrepresent the AI community on a couple of points. The claim that minds are software (usually called "functionalism") is held by all researchers in artificial intelligence that I know of. People who disagree, and claim that you need some special "brain stuff" implementing the software, are not artificial intelligence researchers, but philosophers or neuroscientists. Roger Penrose's ideas on consciousness are laughed at in the AI community, which thinks his expertise in physics is no reason to take his ideas about intelligence seriously.<br /><br />BTW, your website gives the time-of-day but not the year or date of each comment.shagbarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07759080646499030919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55058684976124278962017-04-15T15:21:31.495-07:002017-04-15T15:21:31.495-07:00Glad I dropped by Interested Observer. And I am s...Glad I dropped by Interested Observer. And I am sorry your sampling set was painful to you. Only note that we are all trained to hold authority in suspicion. If scientists supplied your own betes noir, then you will denounce them. <br /><br />You accuse me of calling scientists a different and better species, just because I defend them from an outrageous attack by those who would lobotomize our civilization. But note, first -- that you are wrong -- but secondly, it is SCIENCE that I primarily defend. As individuals, scientists may be as flawed as anyone (though knowing a whole lot more.) But the PROCESS of science is the only way we've found that systematically disproves lies.<br /><br />We are now awash in lies, and the powers who have re-ignited the American Civil War have made it their business to attack full-force every profession that might offer expert and experimental disproof of falsehoods.<br /><br />Moreover, you know this to be so. <br /><br />onward.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89637315039221214602017-04-10T14:40:57.790-07:002017-04-10T14:40:57.790-07:00With all due respect Dr. Brin, some of the worst h...With all due respect Dr. Brin, some of the worst human beings I've ever worked with were from Academics, in my field PhDs are famous for trying to get themselves, or worse, some dumb kid killed. <br /><br />I get your point about the propaganda but the constant articles about how professors are the font of all hope and life are making me throw up in my mouth. Scientists of all stripes and professions are not a separate species, by which I mean they are no more or less noble than the societies and cultures they come from.<br /><br />Interested Observerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686192811380975495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27220434656392484552017-04-10T01:16:29.750-07:002017-04-10T01:16:29.750-07:00onward then...onward then...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2775272841837586322017-04-09T20:07:10.197-07:002017-04-09T20:07:10.197-07:00Before moving onward I just want to say I was disa...Before moving onward I just want to say I was disappointed with the tech tea link.<br /><br />I was hoping we'd see a website with information on technologically crafted blends of tea leaves for better flavour teas and the like. Not stuff on phones. tsk.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60728690331196481172017-04-09T16:13:53.304-07:002017-04-09T16:13:53.304-07:00onward (at last! But spread word about the Gelern...onward (at last! But spread word about the Gelernter piece.)<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17142603135981910192017-04-09T14:08:24.024-07:002017-04-09T14:08:24.024-07:00locumranch also misunderstands just what "Uni...locumranch also misunderstands just what "Unity is strength" and "Diversity is strength" actually mean.<br /><br />There is strength in unity when people pull together for a common goal and/or a common defense. The concept doesn't require the people exhibiting unity to be of the same race or physical type. Likewise, diversity is strength when different people bring different expertise together into that "unity". No one who would claim unironically that diversity is strength means that internal conflict is in itself a good thing.<br /><br />The racial purity argument would prefer iron to steel on the grounds that iron, as an element whose atoms all look alike, is pure. It's a strong metal, but can be brittle, and is also susceptible to rust and magnetism. A good steel alloy will beat it in a sword fight.<br /><br />In other words, he wasn't lying when he admitted to being a FOOL!<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49564685695128708482017-04-09T12:51:15.168-07:002017-04-09T12:51:15.168-07:00donzelion:
Why would Trump collude with Putin, ev...donzelion:<br /><i><br />Why would Trump collude with Putin, even indirectly? Both can get 80% of the benefits of collusion, while taking none of the risks, simply by carefully orchestrating signals in a way that maintains plausible deniability.<br /></i><br /><br />You're being way too literal. :)<br /><br />The question of collusion is to whether Trump and his campaign worked in concert with a hostile foreign government in order to subvert Americas interests in favor of his own. As opposed to simply being the beneficiary of such actions without themselves actually taking any treasonous action. Whether there was an actually phone conversation or secret face-to-face meeting at which each party specified contractually which actions were to be taken by whom is irrelevant.<br /><br />Before 9/11 made him insane, Frank Miller wrote a graphic novel in the Sin City series in which a character, Senator Roark, laid out the facts of life to the protagonist. I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but essentially: "I could beat you to death with a baseball bat the way I did to my wife, and a hundred people would swear that I was somewhere else at the same time. <b>I wouldn't even have to ask them</b>; they would just do it. That's what power is."<br /><br />It would have been 21 years ago when I read that, and it stuck with me ever since. So I can chuckle knowingly when an alderman swears that Mayor Daley (or Mayor Emmanuel) never <b>asked</b> him to do some particular thing.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17387204363861838722017-04-09T12:23:23.579-07:002017-04-09T12:23:23.579-07:00These kinds of codes within codes alter the inform...These kinds of codes within codes alter the information of transparency back into mere data noise. As the quantity of data expands, the actual information exchanged remains relatively consistent. If anyone cracks the code, esp. in a context that might result in someone being held accountable, a new code is utilized that further adds complexity.<br /><br />Read through the transcripts that are available for Putin and Trump crony contacts. They are already feeling out a coded set of exchanges, hints about sanctions serving as a public canard, while other pieces are tested and confirmed...donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13522536514959303872017-04-09T12:17:52.901-07:002017-04-09T12:17:52.901-07:00Dr. Brin: "Those who doubt collusion could a...Dr. Brin: "Those who doubt collusion could arrange this so-convenient distraction in Syria..."<br /><br />Noted, but again, secret meetings tend to go toward reducing costs or arranging payments for something off the radar - not for colluding or taking orders. Businesses have evolved from the 'direct orders' model that typified the trusts Roosvelt and Taft abhorred. States are even more sophisticated.<br /><br />Why would Trump collude with Putin, even indirectly? Both can get 80% of the benefits of collusion, while taking none of the risks, simply by carefully orchestrating signals in a way that maintains plausible deniability. If some journalist asserts that collusion is going on, he has counters to discredit that - which will drown out the claims for years - so long as there is nothing direct and explicit that ever comes to light (like a tape recording).<br /><br />This is how they can respond to transparency to retain the same control and collusion. Even a report about secret meetings and plans plays into the game - how many views? What response, and from whom? Feed those reports yourself and assess the traction. Then determine what can be ignored, what must be responded to. Disinformation can crowd out any response as easily as accurate information - esp. when the code includes its own special platen (e.g., a leak to buzzfeed = x, a leak to brietbart = y...same nugget of fact, totally different meaning in the message conveyed and action to be taken).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25082933858975749462017-04-09T11:33:40.068-07:002017-04-09T11:33:40.068-07:00Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool w...Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him:<br /><i><br />Which of the following sayings is true? (A) 'Unity is Strength', (B) Diversity is Strength', (C) Both, (D) Neither. You're an uncivil truth-telling fool if you choose A; you're a polite civilised liar if you choose B; you're an Orwellian genius if you choose C; and you're an ignorant sociopath if you choose D.<br /></i><br /><br />Which answer does a FOOL pick?<br /><br />Do you know why just about every tree planted along the sides of the road in my suburb is dying or dead? Because the Asian ash-borer invaded the region, and every single effing tree in town (all exceptions duly noted) was an ash tree. They were apparently planted in the 70s when all of the elm trees were killed by Dutch elm disease. Now, the city is planting a variety of different trees to replace the racially pure dead ones. Why? Because diversity is strength, you fucking moron. And that's not just polite lying either, because I wouldn't have said "fucking" if I were attempting politeness.<br /><br />Ok, now I'll try one:<br />Which of the following sayings is true? (A) 'Trump is dangerous', (B) 'Hillary is dangerous', (C) Both, (D) Neither. You're an uncivil truth-telling fool if you choose A; you're a polite civilized liar if you choose B; you're a useful idiot for the Republicans if you choose C; and you're completely ignorant of anything political if you choose D.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13785436207234145642017-04-09T11:22:43.861-07:002017-04-09T11:22:43.861-07:00a fool:
As proof that our society rewards liars &...a fool:<br /><i><br />As proof that our society rewards liars & acts as if lying is virtue, look no further than D Trump & B Clinton. The first admits to sexually aggressive kitten-grabbing & is labelled an uncivil villain, whereas the second denies proven acts of kitten-penetration & is labelled a civil gentleman.<br /></i><br /><br />First of all, since when is Bill Clinton perceived as a civic gentleman? The popular image of his character is summed up in the SNL "Family Feud" sketch with the Trumps on one side and the Clintons on the other, in which "Bill" ambles over to the other table in order to chat up "Ivanka".<br /><br />More to the point, though, Trump is not labeled an uncivil villain for <b>admitting</b> sexual aggressiveness. <br /><br />Your argument amounts to "This guy is vilified for admitting that he killed his pregnant girlfriend, while this other guy who commits a similar crime gets off because he doesn't testify against himself. Telling the truth is punished and lying is rewarded. Therefore, society values lying and abhors truth-telling."<br /><br /><i><br />That I am a FOOL, I freely admit<br /></i><br /><br />The big secret is that we didn't need you to tell us that. It would make you a good sig line though. You should consider substituting it for "Best".<br /><br /><i><br />"A wise man knows himself to be a fool (whereas) a fool thinks himself to be wise" <br /></i><br /><br />And only the true Messiah will deny his divinity. <br /><br />So are you freely admitting to being a fool who is therefore wise by definition, or are you freely admitting that you only think yourself to be wise? I'm guessing even you don't know the answer.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37835580575753575652017-04-09T10:08:55.226-07:002017-04-09T10:08:55.226-07:00Unity is Strenght, as in Norsefire?
Unity is Strenght, as in Norsefire?<br />Marinonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26872794347729019222017-04-09T09:54:59.336-07:002017-04-09T09:54:59.336-07:00It's thrilling to see my foolish acts of truth...<br />It's thrilling to see my foolish acts of truth rewarded by David's 'spit-take'.<br /><br />As proof that our society rewards liars & acts as if lying is virtue, look no further than D Trump & B Clinton. The first admits to sexually aggressive kitten-grabbing & is labelled an uncivil villain, whereas the second denies proven acts of kitten-penetration & is labelled a civil gentleman. <br /><br />Donzelion, also, can attest how our system of 'Criminal Justice' (a Freudian slip, perhaps?) actually encourages our Protector Caste to lie to those that they have sworn to protect & serve (which they call 'suspects') in order to provoke either compliance or an inadvertent admission of guilt. <br /><br />Orwell's 'newspeak' has become so commonplace that even our meekest schoolteachers, who earn their bread as educational system propagandists, collaborators & enablers, claim to have "been railing against the American education system for as long as (they) have been on this blog".<br /><br />That I am a FOOL, I freely admit:<br /><br />"A wise man knows himself to be a fool (whereas) a fool thinks himself to be wise" (Shakespeare again).<br /><br /><br />Best<br />_____<br />Which of the following sayings is true? (A) 'Unity is Strength', (B) Diversity is Strength', (C) Both, (D) Neither. You're an uncivil truth-telling fool if you choose A; you're a polite civilised liar if you choose B; you're an Orwellian genius if you choose C; and you're an ignorant sociopath if you choose D.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50313858732042348372017-04-09T07:27:38.611-07:002017-04-09T07:27:38.611-07:00And a (hopefully) quick note on nods, winks and th...And a (hopefully) quick note on nods, winks and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which is now mostly obsolete. Ever wonder why prices of most goods are the same all over any given country? Is this competition reducing consumer costs to the "highest price the market will bear"? Hardly. Just as both Truman and Stalin were smart enough to anticipate the post-war economic decline and create the Cold War to keep the factories open, CEOs the world over know better than to get into a war of undercutting each other's prices. They make more money when they nod and wink at each other by simply observing each other's prices and matching them (much like the Christmas Truce of WW I, there is no direct communication b/c that would be caught by supervisors and stopped). So much for a holy tenet of the Capitalist faith!Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91265121188070399382017-04-09T07:16:48.661-07:002017-04-09T07:16:48.661-07:00A quick thank you to Yeasin for providing that tec...A quick thank you to Yeasin for providing that tech link about cell phones. No one else seems to have noticed the bloke.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62259644543661276402017-04-09T07:13:49.325-07:002017-04-09T07:13:49.325-07:00Locus's lies, con.t,
"commie-progressive...Locus's lies, con.t,<br /><br />"commie-progressive”<br />Seriously, after all I wrote about Cold War enculturation, he can still equate the two? Yet another example of selective reading and motivated reasoning. Argument by assertion (basically what you are doing any time you put 2 unrelated words together and pretend they are equivalents) doesn’t hold a candle where people are actually capable of critical thought. Wherever he is, this guy must be surrounded by nothing but bobble heading sheep.<br />“most Judeo-Christians deny the reality of human maliciousness by wishing that the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you 'should' have them do unto you) is also true.”<br />This one gets an award for the purity of its solipsism. The Golden Rule is not something that is “true” or “untrue” - it is a cultural value, meaning that it is a shared notion, not a fact. On top of that, the Bible is chock full of admonitions against sin, so the expectations of the Golden Rule are in no way a denial of the darker sides of human nature, they are an ideal for its proponents to strive for. This is true of any religion you can name - they all see that dark side but try to persuade humans to cast it aside (a proposition that is often psychologically damaging).<br />"Lying is an act of virtue !!” <br />Apparently low level, presumably harmless or even esteem-boosting lies are, but not higher level stuff like (I would never cheat on you, Honey” or “My bid for the presidency has nothing to do with Russian oil deals.” Here again I could cite Douglas Adams.<br /><br />And this one isn’t a lie, but it does tell you something about him.<br /><br />"(2) My preference for unpleasant truths & my dislike of polite fiction means that I am uncivil, hateful & impolite by definition "<br />This textbook Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (contra popular belief, OCD is not always about cleanliness. There are versions in which the fixation can relate to moral issues such as truthfulness, fairness or any other moral concern enculturated into people from a young age. He is claiming to be more truthful than anyone else because he has a problem with what most people call “little white lies.” I probably share that compulsion, but I recognize it for what it is, rather than an indication that I have god-like powers of perception. Pitiful.<br /><br />Of course, no one here seems to be falling for his endless mounds of excrement, yet, like a Bible-banger shouting his fanaticism from the street corner, he persists exclaiming the the virtues of imaginary barbarians he saw in the movie theater. Once again, pitiful.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18303721472320868892017-04-09T07:09:43.969-07:002017-04-09T07:09:43.969-07:00Our little locum is back to his usual solipsism an...Our little locum is back to his usual solipsism and outright lies.<br />…<br />"pathological benefits of said capitalism. “<br />Pathological benefits? How can a benefit be pathological? Behavior can be, like locum’s pathological lying.<br />"Believing themselves 'civilised', they assume that those 'barbarians' who do not share their idiosyncratic views are not.”<br />Absolutely not. Progressives accept all views, regardless of how idiosyncratic they might be, except those that refuse to accept any views except their own. This is not a difference between ‘civilized’ and ‘barbarian’ - plenty of human civilizations have promoted deep ethnocentrism and insisted that their ideas are universal. That is the difference between tyranny and democracy. You only need to look at Western History during the needlessly bloody Reformation vs. most modern democracies, in which all views are pretty much tolerated so long as citizens abide by the law and pay their taxes.<br />"And, while they both crow about how "progressive" mass education is, they remain enamoured with a mass educational system that results (has resulted) in unprecedented levels of mental disability, ignorance, entitlement & cultural narcissism.”<br />Now this is a truly outlandish fabrication. I have been railing against the American education system for as long as I have been on this blog, yet he insists that I am enamored with it. Deepest horse shit here. <br />"And, what is the hallmark of the Barbarian? Their preference for raw vitality, plain talk, brutal honesty, direct action & the absolute rejection of 'polite niceties’.”<br />Obviously this guy only knows barbarians from Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. People who have been labeled ‘barbarians’ historically (irrespective of the subjectivity of such labels) have always had their own rules of politeness, as do all human (bot not all movie) societies. <br />Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39187862800023492452017-04-09T07:06:38.482-07:002017-04-09T07:06:38.482-07:00Duncan,
There is nothing you wrote here I disagre...Duncan,<br /><br />There is nothing you wrote here I disagree with. My whole point is that any trade system needs careful supervision (fire pits & extinguishers) to prevent it from eating up the world. And yes, we need free trade, up to the point it starts destroying the "we" it is meant to enrich. That line was crossed back during the Gilded Age, and now the organization that is supposed to supervise (government) has been pretty thoroughly corrupted by it (or burned to the point of teetering on collapse, to go with your fire metaphor).<br /><br />But you are still missing the point about Cold War enculturation and the difference between free trade and capitalism. You, like most people in your age group, are equating the two, but they are not the same. Free trade has been going on as long as H. saps have walked the Earth. Capitalism is a distorted concept made for the purposes of propaganda. For Marx it was propaganda against the evils of Industrial Era big business, which was corrupting governments right and left (though that started before the Industrial Revolution - as Dr. Brin pointed out way back, with the British and Dutch East India companies). Much of Western Europe and the Americas turned that around to become anti-Communist propaganda, turning the Deadly Sin of Greed into our greatest virtue. When you equate free trade with capitalism, you are falling for that propaganda hook, line and sinker.<br /><br />Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13879308841715768902017-04-09T07:04:13.899-07:002017-04-09T07:04:13.899-07:00@Dr Brin,
Speak of the devil and he will appear. ...@Dr Brin,<br /><br />Speak of the devil and he will appear. From today's www.electoral-vote.com :<br /><br /><i><br />Indeed, putting on a military show for symbolic purposes seems to be all the rage these days. As details trickle in about the attack in Syria, it is evident that the Tomahawk missile attack on Shayrat Airfield had no appreciable effect on Syria's military capability. The United States did not even attempt to destroy the runway at Shayrat, reasoning—remarkably enough—that it would be easily repaired. Consequently, the airfield is already operational again. Late Saturday, another attack was launched on Ash Sha'irat, the target of the original chemical strike. It is, as yet, unclear if the attackers were Russian or Syrian. What is clear that the U.S. strike was not a success. Unless, of course, it too was primarily for the benefit of the American public. Certainly, whether by design or by chance, nobody has given much attention to the Trump-Russia connection for the past few days.<br /></i><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32732885061969225692017-04-09T06:53:13.896-07:002017-04-09T06:53:13.896-07:00Dr Brin:
Stunning that no one seems to note that ...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />Stunning that no one seems to note that the Syrian biz drove news of DT’s russian puppetry right off the headlines.<br /></i><br /><br />The news media does seem to be desperate for a "Donald Trump grows into the office" moment, and of course, they also love saber-rattling. This not only knocked President Snow's ties to Russia off of the front pages, but also the illegitimate installation of a right-wing Supreme Court justice and the resignation of Devin Nunes from the ironically-named House Intelligence Committee.<br /><br />For ordinary people who aren't already in the Trump camp, though, I don't think it has escaped notice that this "response" was full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Even Bill Maher already noted that the airfield in question was up and running again the next day. And that Russia <b>and Syria</b> had time to remove their people and best stuff from the airfield before the attack. And that Russia has underwritten the replacements for Syria's air force, while a Trump company will be paid to resupply those Tomahawk missiles.<br /><br />Ultimately, this won't change anything domestically. Fervent Trump supporters and party-first Republicans will find it one more reason to give the illegitimate president the benefit of the doubt, while #TheResistance will not be swayed by these bull-in-china-shop antics.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12565776487024686062017-04-09T06:42:33.058-07:002017-04-09T06:42:33.058-07:00locumranch:
Jumper is correct, too, it seems: Lyi...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Jumper is correct, too, it seems: Lying is an act of virtue !!<br /></i><br /><br />Too bad he was lying when he said that. :)<br /><br />The universe you live in does pose some interesting puzzles though. Like, when Donald Trump calls mainstream outlets "Fake News!!!!!!", does he mean that as a compliment? When right-wing judges lie about what they would do on the Supreme Court, are they exhibiting the height of virtue? And is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" the exception that proves the rule--the <b>only</b> situation in which lying is discouraged?<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58293371651572966092017-04-09T05:59:05.825-07:002017-04-09T05:59:05.825-07:00Dr Brin:
His ‘white lies’ idiocy is beyond belief...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />His ‘white lies’ idiocy is beyond belief. No other society lied as LITTLE as we do. In harshly pyramidal societies you had to flatter and lie every minute of every day, just to survive. loco.<br /></i><br /><br />Are you kidding, though? Locum would be at home in such a system. No wonder he wants it so badly.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9461800401589858072017-04-09T04:58:35.046-07:002017-04-09T04:58:35.046-07:00Those who doubt collusion could arrange this so-co...Those who doubt collusion could arrange this so-convenient distraction in Syria: “Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump-Putin back channel<br />Erik Prince met with a Russian close to the Kremlin in a meeting brokered by the United Arab Emirates.”<br /><br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/2017/04/03/95908a08-1648-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?wpisrc=nl_most-draw16&wpmm=1David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56059180183568900172017-04-09T03:11:32.138-07:002017-04-09T03:11:32.138-07:00If Donald Trump gave the Russians the opportunity ...If Donald Trump gave the Russians the opportunity to experiment with<br />anti-missile systems, that's treason. But what's one more?<br /><br />Seriously. Someone should shout from the rooftops how the winners in this "ounitive attack" were Donald Trump, Assad and Vladimir Putin. The loser was the US and our military and the Syrian victims whop were gassed in order to provide this pretext for a distraction from DT's Russia troubles.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com