• Feeding the Abscess's Avatar
    Today, 03:35 PM
    My comment here focuses on the spoken word intro/outro: It's total amateur hour. It shouldn't be very difficult to find someone to speak a couple of lines who can actually speak in that octave, rather than have someone attempt to do it out of range.
    2 replies | 85 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    28 replies | 238 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 11:14 AM
    LOL. What about if I oppose the Franco-Prussian War? :rolleyes:
    29 replies | 430 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 10:50 AM
    John Polkinghorne, maybe? That's just a guess. I have no familiarity with the content of his thought, but he is the only theologian-physicist of whom I am aware to have addressed God vis--vis quantum mechanics.
    54 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 09:35 AM
    As one of the "useless anarchists" (a description I gladly accept, as I have no desire to be "useful" to statists), I have no problem at all with this SCOTUS decision. The fact that I am opposed to the death penalty does not mean that I support the Feds sticking their goddam noses where they don't belong.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 09:14 AM
    Many Worlds does have its proponents among professional physicists, as do several other interpretations. But by far, the dominant understanding of quantum mechanics among professional physicists is and always has been Copenhagenism. Most physicists are not philosophers and have no interest in philosophizing about their work - and the Copenhagen interpretation is the most amenable (or perhaps it would better to say "least unamenable") to this mindset. Compared to other interpretations (such as the extravagant Many Worlds), though, Copenhagenism is pedestrian. It is "boring" and not "sexy" - which is why Many Worlds and other frameworks get highly disporportionate attention in pop-science outlets, science fiction stories, and other popular (rather than professional) venues. This may give the impression that Many Worlds et al. dominate among working physicists, but it is not so. While we're on this particular subject: I strongly recommend the book "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert for anyone who is interested in the various "schools" of interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was published in the mid-80s, so it doesn't cover things like Cramer's "transactional" interpretation or some of the more recent decoherence-based interpretations, but it does an excellent job of unbaisedly discussing (in a way accessible to the intelligent layman) eight of the most significant quantum "realities" - including Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, Einsteinian "realism," etc.
    54 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 03:44 AM
    That is not the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. What you are talking about is the so-called "Many Worlds" interpretation (which is not the dominant or "standard" interpretive framework). The Copenhagen interpretation does not involve or suggest any kind of "multiverse" - and it certainly does not assert that "both happen." Despite the fact that it is indeed the prevailing or "standard" interpretive framework for quantum mechanics, there is actually no formal and precise definition of exactly what the Copenhagen interpretation is. Such as it is (and in a crude nutshell), it asserts that it is not cognitively meaningul to speak of quantum objects or phenomena as having any definite or particular states prior to their being measured. IOW: Copenhagenists regard discussions about whether the cat is alive or dead to be pointless nonsense until the cat's state is actually measured by an observer.
    54 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    29 replies | 430 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 01:56 AM
    I don't have a problem with mitigating or aggravating factors being considered in sentencing. The violent bigotry exhibited by Lauren Kirk-Coehlo can be considered an aggravating factor. It should not be required to be considered, but it should not be prohibited from being considered, either. The problem I have is that it is not the local community that is deciding whether and how to apply those factors - it is "justice system" apparatchiks and automatons who are making such decisions (such as the "Yolo County probation officials" and their "sentencing reports" mentioned in the OP article).
    24 replies | 604 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 01:25 AM
    Hate Crimes are #FakeCrimes. Property crimes are real. But of course, as far as the State is concerned, there are no crimes against persons or property - there are only crimes against the State. Which is exactly why we get bullshit like this: Full restitution and punitive damages would be perfectly adequate. A prison term of any length is entirely uncalled for. But the State doesn't give a damn about making victims whole. It only cares about feeding its own rapacious maw.
    24 replies | 604 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 12:50 AM
    Sounds like a special case of the following:"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." -- Gordon J. Tucker The former is what happens in republics. The latter is what happens in empires. Even the Caesars sometimes attended the Senate, if only for the sake of form. I guess we're getting past that point now ...
    25 replies | 639 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 12:01 AM
    No matter how cynical I get, the police always find a way to live up to my expectations ...
    18 replies | 528 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:52 PM
    We have always been at war with Eastasia.
    10 replies | 377 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:44 PM
    Fixed with bold insertions ^^^^^ So get rid of prisons - and the myriad statutory rules and "Propositions" that intentionally feed them (or unintentionally fail to feed them, as the case may be). Then (re)implement restitution, indenturement, weregild, outlawry, citizen-initiated-and-arbitrated indictments, etc. But, no ... if that was done, then there would be little or no role for the State's so-called "justice" system and Prison-Industrial Complex ... :rolleyes:
    11 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:18 PM
    We can't tolerate a ratio of anything less than infinity:0. Cops need to be shooting ALL mundane dogs (and other perps) - not just some of them. Officer safety is too important to do anything less.
    21 replies | 345 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:59 PM
    It has nothing to do with emotion. And it has nothing to do with "the impact of more lives lost" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It is an appeal against hypocrisy. Killers can be punished without killing them. Capital punishment will inevitably result in the killing of innocents. Killing innocents in the name of punishing the killers of innocents is the epitome of hypocritical self-contradiction If anything, yours is the emotional position. You clearly don't give a damn about the wrongly-convicted innocent. I doubt you even give a damn about the rightly-convicted guilty. As I suspect is the case for many "law and order" masturbators, support for capital punishment seems to be little more than a legal way of vicariously getting off on killing other people.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:10 PM
    Learn to read. I didn't say it would "make everything ok" - I said it would prevent the hypocritical killing of innocents. If you discover someone did not commit a crime, you can let him out prison. You can't let him out of the grave. LOL. What makes you think assholes like me wouldn't just let them escape? (You're really not too bright, are you? Spiteful, definitely. But not too bright ...)
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:19 AM
    :rolleyes: Yeah, I can make ridiculous arguments like that, too - like so: "People in favor of the death penalty should be put on death row for crimes they did not commit. See how their views will change ..." Your point is even more ridiculous given that "prisoners that have life sentences without parole" compose only a small fraction of the prison population as a whole. Even if you executed every single one of them, it would make no significant difference to your allegedly "worst work imaginable." which I call bullshit on anyway - if the special snowflakes can't hack their jobs, then they should go into other lines of work (perhaps that of meter maids) instead of whining about how not enough people are being executed in order to make their jobs easier. And in any case, locking people up in rape cages has got to be one of the most counterproductive and goddam stupidest ways of dealing with criminals. All it does is make criminals out of the innocents who get sent up. and even harder criminals out of the criminals who do.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    28 replies | 433 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 10:56 PM
    UNFORTUNATE BUT NECESSARY. NOT INTENTIONALLY MALEVOLENT. GRAHAM DYER DID THIS TO HIMSELF.
    28 replies | 433 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 09:58 PM
    File "unfortunate but necessary" under "not intentionally malevolent" ... (... someone remind me - how often do pizza delivery guys and various other mundanes find the killing of dogs to be "unfortunate but necessary" ... ?) Bullshit. Any such "training" is clearly of the *nudge-nudge-wink-wink* school ...
    21 replies | 345 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 09:22 PM
    I did not dispute that there are different definitions of rights. As I said, definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative. I disputed the underlying concept denoted by your particular usage of the term "rights" in relation to the statement you were making (namely, that the rights of those who abrogate the rights of others may themselves be abrogated). I know that Rand asserts that one's "rights" necessarily derive from the nature of man qua man. Thus, if, as you claim, she also tells us that one's "rights" are contingent upon one's not violating the "rights" of others, then she is being contradictorily equivocal. Those things cannot both be correct, regardless of what definition of "rights" one chooses. This was the point is was trying to make (albeit perhaps poorly). If so, what's wrong with that? Many of today's biggest and most intractable socio-political problems arise because the concept of "rights" is being much too widely construed.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 06:22 PM
    Definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative. Thus, if you like, you (and Ayn Rand) are free to use the word "elephant" to denote "a small furry animal that purrs and uses a litter box" - but this will not turn cats into elephants or elephants into cats. If one is not unconditionally entitled to a thing (that is, if it can be "taken away because "), then it is not a right; it is at best a revocable privilege (regardless of what particular labels you might prefer to use in place of any of those terms). No, you did not give three scenarios where it is the case that "there is no possib the person is innocent." You gave three highly generalized examples of things that might provide some amount of evidence that a person may be guilty. The former and the latter are not even remotely the same things. There are far, far too many possibilities for (not to mention documented cases of) false confessions, doctored evidence (including video), and erroneous "eye" witness testimony to take seriously any claim that they are even commensurable, let alone the same.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 03:34 PM
    First, you bitch and whine about people you say are all, like, "me, me, me" ... ... and then you're all, like, "me, me, me" ... :rolleyes: Hypocrite.
    47 replies | 993 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 02:15 PM
    If it can be "taken away," then it is not a right - it is a (revocable) privilege. (Which is precisely what I meant when I said, "Anything you might lose when you violate the rights of others cannot ipso facto properly have been said to be a right to begin with.") And the notion of a right "to be free from coercion" is nonsensical. The application of coercion/force is sometimes necessary in order to enforce rights. You cannot reasonably speak about rights at all without involving the possibility of coercion. You have the right to be free from aggressive or initiatory coercion/force, but you do not have the "right" to be free from defensive or retaliatory coercion/force. IOW: It makes no sense to speak of "taking away" someone's rights "because ." It is a contradiction to do so.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 01:23 PM
    I understand it, too. (I shed not a single tear when Dahmer got shanked.) But it doesn't signify. Which is the greater moral outrage: to execute a wrongly-convicted innocent, or to fail to indulge the desires of people who want the death penalty for a guy like Jeffrey Dahmer?
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 01:53 AM
    Questions of criminal guilt are insescapably emprical in nature, and are therefore always subject to the possibility of doubt. "Overwhelmingness" (whatever that is supposed to mean) has got nothing to do with it. Among those who have been found "guilty," how do you propose to effectively distinguish between those who are "overwhelmingly" guilty and those are "merely" guilty? (Yet another trial process? A coin flip? Magical divination? What, then?) And having done so (by whatever means). what jurisprudential principles are then to be used to determine the punishments that are proper for those who have been found "overwhelmingly" guilty of some crime as distinct from the punishments (for exactly the same crime, mind you) that are proper for those who have been found "merely" guilty? There are verdicts of "guilty" or "not guilty" - and those verdicts may be correct or incorrect. That is all. And the fact that there may be correct "guilty" verdicts (Dahmer, etc.) does not rectify or abnegate incorrect "guilty" verdicts, of which there will always and inevitably be some number. Under any system of capital punishment, no matter how stringent it may be, there will always be errors. Thus, under any such system, there will always be innocents killed in the name of punishing those who kill innocents. It is difficult to conceive a more profound and indefensible hypocrisy than this.
    133 replies | 2089 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 12:02 AM
    At first I was like ... ... but then I was like ...
    181 replies | 3926 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    04-22-2017, 10:26 PM
    Are you suggesting that the "Court of Rights and Responsibilities" and the "National Sharing Fund" could be anything other than salubrious and upright? :eek:
    4 replies | 260 view(s)
More Activity

11 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I may just be tired. I don't generally care what people think, but being considered crazy by pretty much everyone gets exhausting after awhile.
  2. View Conversation
    I'm disappointed WRT your comment in my rep. I didn't know that about Rand. Disappointing. One more reason for me not to be thrilled, I guess. What would Rand's proposal accomplish? I mean, if security procedures were left up to the individual airport that might be a significant improvement (although I think even better would be to leave it to the airlines) but as long as DHS is running it, how is that helping anything?

    I wish I could ask Rand Paul that question. I do really want to know what he's thinking.
  3. View Conversation
    WRT: Coercion, yeah, I get what you're saying, and technically what you describe would be coercion, but I wasn't really thinking along those lines. I guess "aggression" was the word I was looking for.
  4. your inbox is full....was trying to let you know that I found another source for the Jones story. I have no idea if this site is any more credible, but it does collaborate the story LE posted:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread311540/pg1
  5. View Conversation
    Actually I live in Ramona. And thanks, by the way.
  6. View Conversation
    haha no worries. And yea, I think you might be right about what you said.
  7. View Conversation
    I think you just negged repped me accidentally. haha
  8. View Conversation
    It's from an essay Ron Paul wrote called "The Political Importance of Murray Rothbard"here's a tinyurl to the source on books.google.com. http://tinyurl.com/3le98og
  9. There's often different discussion on the two forums, figured I'd see which took off. My threads don't show up on the home page list, for whatever reason.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 11
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
About Feeding the Abscess

Basic Information

Signature


Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
The epitome of libertarian populism

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
8,259
Posts Per Day
3.29
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
11
Most Recent Message
08-17-2014 10:43 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:04 PM
Join Date
06-09-2010
Referrals
0

8 Friends

  1. Christian Liberty
  2. green73 green73 is offline

    Member

    green73
  3. madfoot madfoot is offline

    Member

    madfoot
  4. noneedtoaggress noneedtoaggress is offline

    Member

    noneedtoaggress
  5. Occam's Banana Occam's Banana is offline

    Member

    Occam's Banana
  6. randroots randroots is offline

    New Member

    randroots
  7. sophietheand sophietheand is offline

    New Member

    sophietheand
  8. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline

    Member

    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 8 of 8

01-23-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

04-12-2017


04-09-2017


04-06-2017


03-28-2017


03-10-2017


03-06-2017


03-01-2017


02-28-2017


02-27-2017


02-23-2017


02-21-2017



Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast