Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I liked "Commander-in-Chief" too, which is interesting because I had
expected to hate it. But it turned out to be less patronizing than
"The West Wing." Even the evil conservative Republican, Nathan
Templeton, turned out to have some redeeming qualities.

But I would argue that your daughter liked it for the same reason.
If the feminist message had been too patronizing, then it would have
been a turnoff to both of us.

And it would have been to me as well.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The situation for leftist Boomers is complicated by the fact that
almost all of them supported the war when it began in 2003. Now
they're acting like reformed drunks who want to burn down every
liquor store.

I rather like that analogy.

The liberal hawks do particularly get on my nerves because they, of all people, should have known better. I expected recklessness and foolishness from the neocons, but not from liberals.

Ouch. That was a painful realization, brought home to me clearly from listening to the paleos and libertarians here at T4T, who didn't have a dog in the internecine fight among Democrats and could look at the situation with some level of objectivity. It was listening to the Seadogs, the Saaris, the Justin '77s, and a few anti-war moderates and lefties (most of whom no longer frequent this site), that helped me see most clearly how misguided the Iraq invasion was.

But, yes, the John Kerrys, the Hillary Clintons, the Joe Bidens, those who are still falling all over themselves to justify voting for this foolishness -- those are the folks that particularly gall me these days.

Now, like a bunch of manic-depressive people drug addicts, the
Boomers in Washington have gone thoroughly into the depressive phase.
Everything is now a disaster and chaos. All is lost. Death is the
only possibility.

You think they completely skipped the denial phase? Or did I miss that part?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

....

...That's how fanatics act, and that's how Boomers are acting today.

... This is the same identical state of denial that the leftists are in.

...journalists are actually abysmally ignorant of what's going on ...

...the Washington Boomer population really is in a state close to total hysteria.

... The Senators were almost giggling, ...

... like a bunch of manic-depressive people drug addicts, the
Boomers in Washington have gone thoroughly into the depressive phase.

... Obama's coverage by journalists to "the shrieks of young girls watching the Beatles in the 1960s."

... "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Yea, but keep in mind --

Just because one is fanatic, in denial, abysmally ignorant, depress, manic , hysterically shrieking or giggling like a girl or, in fact, insane, doesn't necessarily mean that one is not truly threatened.

-- Isn't that the irony of approaching 4Ts? ;-)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Don't you get it? That's how Millenials 'take action'.

Fer sure.

It sounds to me like the kid should probably start worrying more about keeping his hide intact than about some jerk in an internet forum.

PS Thanks for the backup. It's nice to not always have to carry one's own water.

Omg, two X'ers have finally come together to cooperate against a common threat, the Millenial generation! Go pick up another inferioity complex or something, sheesh.

Good luck in Iraq kid or wherever they send you.

Originally Posted by BigStar

Omg, two X'ers have finally come together to cooperate against a common threat, the Millenial generation! Go pick up another inferioity complex or something, sheesh.

Whatever, kid. Go murder some hajjis.


The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. -- a real American

Psycological Evalutation: You guys are extremely jealous of my overbearing masculinity, and will do anything, including castration, to try and bring me back to your level of suseptibility. Come talk to me when you have a scratch on your sheltered baby faces. Fucking playing philosopher on the internet. For all of my anti-feminism talks, I think I like generally prefer women over about 75% percent of men who like to showoff their X chromosome too much.

ROLMFAO ~ not enuff characters 'hunh!'

Originally Posted by BigStar

Psycological Evalutation: You guys are extremely jealous of my overbearing masculinity, and will do anything, including castration, to try and bring me back to your level of suseptibility. Come talk to me when you have a scratch on your sheltered baby faces. Fucking playing philosopher on the internet. For all of my anti-feminism talks, I think I like generally prefer women over about 75% percent of men who like to showoff their X chromosome too much.

I've had a lot of experience with Millenials, and you are beginning to sound more like a caricature than a real person.

Me? A caricature? Naaah. I just love to get a reaction. Especially from Boomer's and Xer's, who are a bunch of twits and can't understand jokes and get baited into responding to me and look like even bigger twits. Plus I'm very good looking.

The first thread I ever looked at one here was something on how people view Millenial's, and the general idea was that we are naieve and innocent, and that pissed me off because

A: I am capable of making more money than half the people on this board
B: I've fucked more women than half the people on this board
C: I could win in a knife fight (A la "Beat It") against half the people on this board

Edit: This message is only directed to the male population of this board, and definitely not all of them. For instance, I wouldn't want Virgil in a knife fight, for reasons of utter fear. The female population of this board, though, I've found to be actually pretty damn enjoyable/unretarded.

Originally Posted by BigStar

Me? A caricature? Naaah. I just love to get a reaction. Especially from Boomer's and Xer's, who are a bunch of twits and can't understand jokes and get baited into responding to me and look like even bigger twits. Plus I'm very good looking.

The first thread I ever looked at one here was something on how people view Millenial's, and the general idea was that we are naieve and innocent, and that pissed me off because

A: I am capable of making more money than half the people on this board
B: I've fucked more women than half the people on this board
C: I could win in a knife fight (A la "Beat It") against half the people on this board

Edit: This message is only directed to the male population of this board, and definitely not all of them. For instance, I wouldn't want Virgil in a knife fight, for reasons of utter fear. The female population of this board, though, I've found to be actually pretty damn enjoyable/unretarded.

I only wish I could be around long enough to see how thoroughly
your children are going to despise you and humiliate you. Oh, the
Schadenfreude.

John

By that time, I'll have already staged a coup and be Grand Despot of the American Federation's, so anyone caught actively despising or humiliating me will be chopped in half at the waste, and ground up to be fed to the new prophet children in school lunch hamburger's.

But honestly, if that plan doesn't work out for some reason, and I haven't had kids in time for them to be the artist archetype, then they're either going to the foster home or the cellar, whichever seems funniest to my friends.

Oh, and sorry, I don't speak Japanese, so I'll figure Schadenfreude has something to do with how attractive I am or how good I am with juggling fruits or how capable I am at making large amounts of cash.

scha·den·freu·de (Noun): How good Bigstar is at juggling fruits.

Even Banana's or fruits wouldn't think juggilable.

jugg-il-ab-le (Adjective): Describing whether or not Popeye's chicken is delicious to you.

Just kidding. Everybody likes Popeye's.

Originally Posted by BigStar

Psycological Evalutation: You guys are extremely jealous of my overbearing masculinity, and will do anything, including castration, to try and bring me back to your level of suseptibility. Come talk to me when you have a scratch on your sheltered baby faces. Fucking playing philosopher on the internet. For all of my anti-feminism talks, I think I like generally prefer women over about 75% percent of men who like to showoff their X chromosome too much.

Does that mean you prefer men about 25% of the time? Oh, my!

Originally Posted by BigStar

...
C: I could win in a knife fight (A la "Beat It") against half the people on this board

Edit: This message is only directed to the male population of this board, and definitely not all of them. For instance, I wouldn't want Virgil in a knife fight, for reasons of utter fear. The female population of this board, though, I've found to be actually pretty damn enjoyable/unretarded.

I hadn't thought of this in a long time, but I come from a puukko carrying Uralic ethos. We are not much for dagger work like Old European-Americans nor are we slashers like the Bowie-d Scots-Irish; the Finnish-Americans are your basic cutters (as are The First Nations-hereabouts).

We all had our folding knives (belt knives being impossible as we wore braces upon our pants in those days of yore) along with the clean handkerchief and comb required by our GI teachers at St. Louis County School #70 from at least third grade (a few of us were carrying from first-grade on). If Mrs. H____ needed a knife for some small difficulty she could survey at least 25 blades before she made her choice (our teachers were also Uralic-Americans-so the idea of a blade-wielding tyke wasn't upsetting or uncommon- we threw knives at recess).

It may be genetic or folk memory as the Xers in my general family have had occasion to draw a blade in anger both in this hemisphere and the other. I have not had general report of the Millennials doing so; it may be that this because of their moral Progress or their joining a more Peaceable Kingdom (now that dodgeball or tag no longer lead to dispute).

I have only used my collection of edges upon various Cervine-, Alcine-, Bovine-, Porsine-, Poultrine-, Musteline- Americans. And, only very rarely in anger (my cousin Clifford had to destroy an attacking male Whitetail with his pocket knife) and mostly in the conversion of my fellow creatures into products suitable for Our Commercial Republic: ie., mincemeats, snowshow webbing, gloves, pork cutlets, ermine robes, Big Mac filling, etc.

But, I and my extended family are quite well acquianted with the blade (does yours debate the finer points of sharpening procedure before the turkey can be carved?) so leaving the Uralic-American at his ease is usually (esp. if he is in his cups) the better portion of wisdom.

See, I knew I had reasons to be scurred. Who could go five paragraphs about knifing people so cryptically and still come off so calm. I'm an American, and generally we as a people aren't afraid of anyone anything (Besides bears), but it's always the calm quiet ones you gotta watch out for.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> John X: Humans and animals are philosophically different after
> birth.

> On what basis? Does the basis you chose apply before birth?

1.0 Proof #1 that it's OK to eat animals.

Assumption: If something occurs fairly universally throughout nature,
then it's OK.

Proof of 1.0: Animals eating other animals occurs fairly universally
throughout nature. Therefore, it's OK. QED

2.0 Proof #2 that it's OK to eat animals.

Assumption: It's OK to do what you need to do to survive.

Assumption: When discussing "life," there's no philosophical
different between plants and animals.

Proof of 2.0: Humans have to eat something to survive, either plants
or animals. Since there no philosophical difference between plants
and animals, it's OK to eat animals. QED

Definition of "separation": A "separation" is a point in
pregnancy whose purpose (for this discussion) is that an abortion is
OK prior to this point, but not OK after this point.

3.0 Proof that there's no philosophically defensible point
separating "abortion is OK" and "abortion is not OK."

3.1 Sub-proof #1 that there's no time-based separation

Example: Some states, following a Supreme Court ruling, restrict
abortions after the 6th month.

Lemma 3.1.1: If something has a certain moral value on day N+1, then
it has almost the same moral value on day N, with no defensible
philosophical difference.

Proof of lemma: We can use value of money as an analogy. If an asset
has a certain value on day N+1, then it has almost the same value on
day N, which can be computed by discounting the value by the current
interest rate. (This argument won't work for longer periods of time,
say 30 years. Also, this argument assumes that the asset doesn't
consume a high level of resources between day N and day N+1, which
might be the case for a fetus if, say, keeping the fetus alive one
more day required killing the mother, for example.)

Similarly, if we assign a "moral value" to something on day N+1, then
it has only a slightly smaller (discounted) moral value on day N,
with no defensible philosophical difference. QED

Proof of 3.1: If an abortion is forbidden on day N+1 because of some
moral value, then it will have almost the same moral value on day N,
with no defensible philosophical difference. Therefore, an abortion
is not OK on day N. (The same argument works if you replace "moral
value" with some other kind of value.) QED

3.2 Sub-proof #2 that there's no time-based separation

Assumption: A time-based separation is based on an assumed event at
that time. (For example, the fetus becomes "viable" - can survive
outside the womb - after 6 months.)

Assumption: There's no such thing as a certain time for any relevant
event. (For example, the probability of a fetus being viable after
six months may be 90%, but it's never certain.)

Proof of 3.2: Substituting probability for moral value, we can use
the same argument as in the proof of 3.1. QED

3.3 Sub-proof that there's no event-based separation

Examples: There are many possible event-based separations: Quickening
(heart starts beating), the point where an ultrasound produces a
recognizable image, viability, birth.

Proof of 3.3: Similar to time-based separations; the moral value the
day before an event is only slightly smaller than on the day of the
event, there's no philosophically defensible separation. QED

Proof of 3.0: There are no event-based or time-based separations, so
there is no philosophically defensible separation.

4.0 Conception as a separation event

The above arguments break down with in the case of conception. The
"moral value" discounting argument is not so easily philosophically
provable, because the probability that conception will actually occur
is far from certain, and because of the uncertainty of the resulting
fetus. It could be argued, for example, that the "practical moral
value" on day N+1 is much greater after conception than before, and
so a simple discounting argument doesn't apply.

5.0 Corollary: Contraception is OK.

Proof of 5.0: As long as contraception prevents conception, then it's
OK, according to 4.0. QED

6.0 Corollary: If abortion is OK, then it's OK to kill live
babies.

Proof of 6.0: "Birth" is no more a separation event than any of the
others are. QED

7.0 Abortion has no philophical meaning; it's a political
decision

Proof of 7.0: If abortion is OK, then it's OK to kill live babies, by
6.0. But philosophically it's not OK to kill live babies.
Therefore, abortion is irrelevant to philosophy, and only has
political importance. QED

8.0 Note: Abortion laws are irrelevant except politically

I once did a quick analysis of abortion rates in countries where
abortion is illegal (usually Catholic countries) and where abortion
is legal, and there was significant difference. Therefore, abortion
laws are irrelevant except as fund-raising political issues for
pro-choice and pro-life groups.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> The liberal hawks do particularly get on my nerves because they,
> of all people, should have known better. I expected recklessness
> and foolishness from the neocons, but not from liberals.

They're all politicians, so why should one group be more foolish than
another?

Why should the liberal hawks have known better? Should they have
forgotten the Truman Doctrine? Should they have forgotten these
words:

> "In the long history of the world, only a few generations have
> been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum
> danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I
> do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any
> other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the
> devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country
> and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light
> the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your
> country can do for you -— ask what you can do for your
> country."

Should they have forgotten what the Clinton administration did in
Bosnia?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> But, yes, the John Kerrys, the Hillary Clintons, the Joe Bidens,
> those who are still falling all over themselves to justify voting
> for this foolishness -- those are the folks that particularly gall
> me these days.

So who's left? Howard Dean? But he's part of the loony left.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton fairly belongs in this list.
She took a principled position and has stuck pretty close to it,
which counts for a lot with me.

Kerry and Biden are panderers. They supported the war when it was
popular, and they stopped supporting it when it became unpopular.

Incidentally, there's significant evidence that the insurgency in Iraq
is diminishing, and this is not a political or ideological
assessment. It was diminishing in the past, until the shrine bombing
in February, and it's back on track to be diminishing, as would be
expected in an Awakening era. Politically, the panderers may have to
eat their words a second time.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> You think they completely skipped the denial phase? Or did I miss
> that part?

Most people in Washington are in denial right now.

Incidentally, I haven't forgotten that I promised a justification,
but it's taking me longer than expected, as do most things in life.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

3.2 Sub-proof #2 that there's no time-based separation

Assumption: A time-based separation is based on an assumed event at
that time. (For example, the fetus becomes "viable" - can survive
outside the womb - after 6 months.)

Assumption: There's no such thing as a certain time for any relevant
event. (For example, the probability of a fetus being viable after
six months may be 90%, but it's never certain.)

Nope, sorry, you can't make this argument if you accept the following --

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

4.0 Conception as a separation event

The above arguments break down with in the case of conception. The
"moral value" discounting argument is not so easily philosophically
provable, because the probability that conception will actually occur
is far from certain, and because of the uncertainty of the resulting
fetus. It could be argued, for example, that the "practical moral
value" on day N+1 is much greater after conception than before, and
so a simple discounting argument doesn't apply.

In one, you are using low probability of one biological process (i.e., conception) to draw the line (i.e., contraceptive okay to use); in the other, you are stating that low probability of another biological process (i.e. survival outside the womb) cannot be used to draw the line (i.e. abortion okay to use). Therefore, you have introduced some bias into the analysis, i.e. the belief that there is something special (i.e., quantum event) about the biological process of conception. And with that bias, we are right back where we started.

I would think that most would agree that the many grey areas of life make it difficult to apply exacting deductive arguments.

I still think Mike's "viable advocacy" is the most rational thing I've seen.

However, best solution is --

Originally Posted by BigStar

Me? A caricature? Naaah. I just love to get a reaction. Especially from Boomer's and Xer's, who are a bunch of twits and can't understand jokes and get baited into responding to me and look like even bigger twits. Plus I'm very good looking.

The first thread I ever looked at one here was something on how people view Millenial's, and the general idea was that we are naieve and innocent, and that pissed me off because

A: I am capable of making more money than half the people on this board
B: I've fucked more women than half the people on this board
C: I could win in a knife fight (A la "Beat It") against half the people on this board

Edit: This message is only directed to the male population of this board, and definitely not all of them. For instance, I wouldn't want Virgil in a knife fight, for reasons of utter fear. The female population of this board, though, I've found to be actually pretty damn enjoyable/unretarded.

I'm female and my first thought was "Hoo boy! When are you going to quarrel with Agamemnon on the Plains of Troy?"

(Ref: the world's best know war story. Preferred version on request.)

Wait, are you comparing me to Paris or Hector, because honestly, I'd take either one.

And another thing, was you're first thought "Hoo Boy" or "Hoo Boy! When are you going to slay Agemeneeenemon". In the first one, the Agemeneneon part would be just an afterthought, and I JUST wanted to CLEAR things up.

Achilles. You didn't guess?

He was also the cutest guy there.

Are you coming on to me?