12

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." - John Galt

Posted by GaltsGulch 7 years, 10 months ago to The Gulch: General
73 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." - John Galt


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by UncommonSense 7 years, 10 months ago
    Hmmm, yes. And Don Henley once sung "There's 3 sides to every story: there's yours and there's mine and there's the cold hard truth". The problem is, most people don't want to acknowledge any truth. Gulchers are the exception.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jconne 7 years, 10 months ago
      "The problem is, most people don't want to acknowledge any truth. Gulchers are the exception."

      Au contraire...
      Most people, to the extent they are successful, do work with facts and truth.

      Arrogance precludes trust and progress. Start with respecting what others get right. From established trust and some shared values, the possibility of additional learning emerged. People are not interested in answers to questions they don't have.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Maritimus 7 years, 10 months ago
        People without questions are not alive.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
          True but that means they are people without answers and still investigating and verifying.

          One should always be interested in the answers to questions they had not thought of...no one gave anyone a lock on ideas.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Maritimus 7 years, 10 months ago
            No, it does not mean that. To investigate, by definition, means to inquire (ask) or to study in order to establish facts (to ask about and establish facts).
            There is no way one can know answers without first knowing questions. That is the nature of answers.
            Communists, all totalitarians and collectivist routinely lock in their own ideas and lock out free thinking from peoples minds.
            Just plain observations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 10 months ago
      Laughing...one might also say that there are "3 Sides of a coin": The two view points representing either philosophy or politics, various mysticism's -(not always about religion) and just from different physical or psychological perspectives. The third side: The edge of the coin, is either the bridge or transition between the two, the truth or...the one or thing, that caused the divide in the first place; depending, on the matter at hand.
      Note: the two sides of the coin could also be the same but from a different perspective...suspicion is upon the edge in those matters.

      Just an interesting thought.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
        exactly. that's where coins were clipped of bits of gold or silver. The ultimate clip job was replacing with plastic and now we no longer use coins. No intrinsic value the proper term is tokens. no coins since what 1965?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
    or as AR would put it 'compromise' is always evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago
      And that was the point of the Galt quote. There are always the two sides, A or not-A, and she did not say that any two positions in any dispute exhaust the possibilities. She was referring to the common bromide about there are 'always two sides' as meaning that both sides always have some validity so compromise. If one side is right and the other wrong, then comprise means corrupting the right with evil, which is evil, and if neither side is right then compromise means combining the evils without regard to what is right.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Maritimus 7 years, 10 months ago
        Hello, ewv,
        You got me thinking about something.
        Let me start with asserting, as the well known book about "Where Mathematics Comes From" does, that mathematics is a human invention.
        Now. Reducing reality observations to simple elements, to help us handling the complexity, is as common as breathing.
        So, for certain purposes, the mathematics is reduced to the simple concept of the number line, from -infinity to +infinity.
        For many other purposes it is very useful to reduce a question about existence to "good" and "bad" or, figuratively, black and white.
        This last one brings us to values and ethics, i.e. philosophy. Ayn Rand used the A and not-A to illustrate her most fundamental principle about philosophy of existence (A is A).
        Let me call all this "reducing to one dimension".
        Of course, the number line ignores the whole world of mathematics, which includes algebra trigonometry, imaginary numbers, non-planar geometry etc. etc.
        "Black" and "white" or "light" and "no-light" ignores the whole spectrum of frequencies in the visible region, which means ignoring all the hues and colors, which make the sight such a satisfying and inspiring perceiver.
        A and not-A ignores the infinite supply of complexities so characteristic of all existence.
        Analysis is a study technique in chemistry and a study technique in logic and philosophy. In opposition to synthesis, analysis identifies elements composing a complex brew's nature. By learning what elements are present, we can begin to understand the brew's usefulness or danger and many other thing about it.
        Analogously, reducing to one dimension, numbers, colors or values, is a useful technique in search of understanding and, CRUICALLY, a tool of the human mind in its thrilling and fabulous search for knowledge.
        Would you agree?
        P.S. Hello, khalling. This is "dedicated" to you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 10 months ago
      Back around when I was a kid with a nifty new driver's license, I recall being told that the ability to compromise was praiseworthy as the American way political parties got things done.
      A little math places that date at 1963.
      Look at us now . . .
      http://www.usdebtclock.org/
      And that's just a small part of "look at us now."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ TomB666 7 years, 10 months ago
        Ugh! I checked my home state Illinois and find that 1 of 6 is on welfare (food stamps). What a mess!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 10 months ago
          It's actually more than that, if you throw in the farmers with the agricultural subsidies and the manufacturers with the export subsidies, etc. The entire country is sucking on the government tit, which is why it's virtually impossible to get a constitutional majority on anything. What's needed is a 250 year plan to get back to constitutionalism, correcting the mistakes that caused "progressivism" along the way. This is a process that we won't see in our lifetimes, but if we start now to establish a truly functioning constitution that doesn't have the flaws of the original, we will eventually have a worldwide Galt's Gulch. In the meantime, we need the patience of the "progressives," who've been working their program for nearly 200 years.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
            The only thing we need from progressives is zero and it doesn't take 250 years. Progressivism is the problem. It isn't, they aren't and it's another name for socialism. If they want to contribute they should just die in place and bark at the moon.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by D_E_Liberty 7 years, 10 months ago
    Maybe this is overly simplistic, but I think AR's meaning is pretty straight forward. To paraphrase, she seems to saying that there is truth and there is untruth. With regard to these absolutes there is no middle. Any attempt to create a middle requires a "individual" to create and hold a contradiction - requires one to hold that a fact is half true and half false at the same time. Existence exists is right. Existence is non-existence is wrong. To say it is both requires a mind to invent the impossible, and then believe it. Such a double rejection of prima facia rational reality seems to be the equivalent of being proactively obtuse... And yes, maybe even evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 years, 10 months ago
    When the choice is between evil and good, moral and immoral there are only two choices. A compromise means morality has moved toward immorality, the next move will be another step in the same direction. America as a republic did not fail suddenly, it has been a constant series of missteps which has lead to a communist democracy where we can vote for the political leaders who will dictate the lives of all. When I started in this fight 47 years ago I believed there were trigger points that would 'alert Americans' because we were special and wouldn't go beyond a certain point towards slavery. America (I don't say we anymore because I am not part of the group) has lost its sense of being a republic and as Estienne de la Boiete once pointed out 500 years ago most people want to be slaves and will demand to be so. All that is needed after that is any absurd leader (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Obama, Bush - insert any name here) willing to take command. As Estienne once said it may be that for those who would be free their best chance is to live a life unobserved by the masses for if you get their attention they will either enslave or kill you. There isn't much hope for anything else. When I first started in the fight we defeated "The Land Use Act" to preserve the right to property and its use. The governing body and the masses immediately conceived the EPA which is a thousand times better at destroying property rights. The freedom movement has done nothing but lose ground since although there are times when those involved in living freely claim the tide is turning and more are joining the movement the end result is Obamacare and an ever encroaching bureaucracy that seeks to control every facet of life and with the advent of computers and a massive facility being built in Utah the ability to watch everyone all the time is only months away. The desire of humanity by an large is imprisonment and slavery and the desire of the majority may remain this way until the race dies out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
      Name one. No more Galt's No more white horses. if there were EPA would demand they be dyed to conform with some regulation.

      Public gets what it asks for. They wanted misery? Let them have it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago
      Which land use prohibition legislation are you referring to? Do you have a link to anything on it? What did you do to fight it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 7 years, 10 months ago
        It was called "The Land Use Act" and was being promoted in 1972. It had many provisions for taking control of someone's land if they weren't using it 'properly'. We campaigned, wrote letters to senators and congressmen, it was not very popular. However with the advent of the 'Environmental Protection Agency' far more over reaching regulations have been passed without any way to contest them. So the win was still a defeat. Don't know where you might find a link.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago
          Do you have a copy of the bill?

          There was another one for national land use controls in the late 1970s under Carter that almost passed. Were you involved in that? It was a big defeat for the viros, and the defeat made a big difference to a lot of landowners everywhere, so fighting it really did matter.

          I haven't been able to find a copy of the actual legislation but have read about the greenline regulations as promoted by its proponents. Instead of the sweeping legislation they lost, as a "compromise" they got a single enormous area at the Pine Barrens in NJ under the control of USF&WS that ruined people. Another one followed at the Columbia Gorge in Oregon and Washington, and they are still pushing, using NPS "Heritage Areas" as an incremental approach.

          EPA has been increasing its tentacles in the name of "clean water" ever since. Obama has just expanded it administratively, bypassing Congress, and that is now being fought in the courts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 7 years, 10 months ago
        I no longer have any information on the bill, Carter did bring around a similar bill trying to pass it. The use of executive orders in place of passing laws is something that has evolved over time. Originally executive orders were used to direct the function of administrators within the operation of the government and now they direct any function outside of the governing body that a sitting president chooses. Prior to Clinton using an executive order to create "The Grand Staircase Monument" in Utah the National Parks had tried to gain control of the Kapairowits Plateau by saying the coal seam there couldn't be developed because it could be seen from the Bryce Canyon National Park 40 miles away! This coal seam (the cleanest burning coal in the world supposedly) was put off limits by Clinton's action declaring the area a National Monument making the use of a coal supply of his supporters inevitable. In Utah we referred to it as 'quid pro coal'. Now even most of the roads in this monument are off limits affecting the ranchers and tourism who used to access beautiful country for the benefit of visitors. Once the feds gain control of land the restrictions never cease. Some ranchers who have owned land and the water rights for over 100 years were recently told they no longer had the rights to the water to protect a turtle population that is not native to the area. No government should ever have the right to control land, it is a method to control people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
    In Oregon 70's to 90's it was the LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission if remember right. Doesn't matter what it was went by this name. Land Commissars and Dictators Commissariat.

    Since then there has been no independently owned land in that state unless one had a pre-legal days pot farm.

    Oregon was known for decades even before that as Appalacia West....70% directly government owned and infested with Californians.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
    "every issue" must be the problem here. It must be an issue such as a some dispute or statement with a existential or moral or political aspects to which logic is applied then there may be some evil in compromise. It cannot be about making economic choices since there are usually other choices which will fit the available possible transactions and have no good/evil or right/wrong or true/false aspects.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 10 months ago
    First, let me say that I believe in the quote. But unfortunately, we do not live within the pages of a book. No matter how rational we are, we are living in a world that is mostly irrational. It has been my experience that in certain situations, actually in many situations there is not a choice between right and wrong. We know that the wrong is evil. But the right can destroy you. If that is true (and believe me, it is) what should a rational person do? This is even more true when people depend on you for their very existence. Do you have the right to destroy their lives because of your principles? I am told that the right always wins in the long run. But, what if there is no long run? Only now or never. Life can throw those hardballs at you. Again, based on my experience, if you are in the game of life, a participant in the arena, things may occur to you that doesn't allow for a choice of right or wrong. Ask anyone over 65 who is being honest, if this is true, and, if this is true, can one still call him/herself and Objectivist?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago
      The right does not destroy you, the right does not win in the long run -- it depends on what people do, and yes we are constantly having false alternatives forced on us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
      I've never had a problem with choosing moral from immoral since I was old enough to distinguish wrong from right and left from right. I've never been disappointed nor had to apologize to anyone for my actions as a result of applying that knowledge...most of all to myself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 10 months ago
    but it may be necessary to go through the middle to get to the right side.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
      Not if you are already there. That's just another form of compromise.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 10 months ago
        We have socialized retirement, medicine, post office, parks, food administration, roads, military, etc.

        The only paths from this to capitalism are revolution and compromise through the middle.

        Do you only advocate revolution?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
          No I'm a strong supporter of counter-revolution. The revolution is the other side. A very strong supporter.

          As for your laundry list where's the connection? First you wanted an excuse to support what you deem evil. then you want to wander through the garden paths of the world to get there. then you try to change the subject.

          Take a time out you are usually much better ...maybe a Red Bull or a Monster.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 10 months ago
    Absolutist thinking is the root of rigid ideology. Often judgements of what is "good" or "evil" are based on subjective, emotional thinking. Absolutist abortionists believe anything that stands in the way of aborting a developing child, for any reason, is "evil." Absolutist anti-abortionists believe that any excuse to abort a developing child is "evil." Who is "right" and on the side of "good" usually depends on who is in the strongest position of power, able to impose their subjective view on others who don't share their belief.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
      It is choosing a false moral value and cheating yourself. Nothing harder than that. No one else can absolve you have choosing self confessed and publicly confessed evil actions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -3
      Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
      We first need to examine and define the word: Evil.
      It means: To plot and plan the demise of another person.
      I think that those who abuse animals tend toward evil and certainly lack a conscience but are they evil? No.
      Abortion is only evil if the person has full knowledge of the development of her fetus, has a moral awakening, and then goes against her conscience in order to please someone else.

      That is the "middle".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 10 months ago
        The definition often depends on who is in power. There are many who would disagree with your choice of "evil" as only applying to the planned demise of another. The politically correct, progressive philosophy chooses to define "evil" as any act that endangers, offends, or disenfranchises any life form able to act independent of other life (they seem to include a human fetus in the same category as parasitic life forms, not protected by their definition of evil). The anti-abortionist regards the imposition of moral judgment on a pregnant human as a form of disenfranchisement of her right to choose to remove a parasitic life form, and therefore "evil" by their standards.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
          What I am saying is:
          Without a clear definition of the word based upon reality and reason, the word becomes a catch-all for whatever you don't like or agree with.

          That is nonsense.

          The word denotes and defines a person who is without personal boundaries and who is also destructive.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 10 months ago
            I think we're in agreement, that often the "definition" of the terms evil and good is precisely nonsense, based on how the definer feels about what they like and dislike in the behavior of those with whom they disagree.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
              This is going to sound strange but I have had a number of truly evil people in my life and they always exibit the same character traits.
              1. They consider life to be a win/lose situation in which they need to cause loss in order to gain.
              2. They consider everything to be "theirs" with no consideration for the real owner.
              3. The vilify the person whom they are targeting.
              4. They "scapegoat" their personality and motives onto the person whom they are targeting.

              Kinda sounds like Bernie Sanders, doesn't it?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 10 months ago
                Those you identify are people afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Our current President has this affliction, wherein it becomes impossible for them to accept any guilt for failure, no matter how responsible they are. The sad part of NPD is that many times, these are intelligent persons, but due to their obsessive view that they are without fault, they can't credit anyone else for success. It is impossible for these people to think in terms of a "carrot/stick" balanced incentive process, only thinking of how to punish the lesser beings around them for not recognizing their superiority.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
              PS: Just because you make one bad judgement call and go against your knowledge doesn't make you evil.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
                Of course not. One of the hardest parts of objectivism is apply the constant changes. We grow, knowledge grows, Conditons change. I did my own study and research on the issue of abortion. Came up with my idea of the right of citizens to be protected when they are unable to protect themselves then to viability based on survival after a premature birth and that made sense to me. No one was going to get the whole cake candles and all. But all parties were protected to an extent less the husband and that is getting to be less and less of a concern.
                then discovered the Congress of all groups had reached the same conclusion and such laws as there were or are ditto the same along with statistics on actual occurences of third trimestrer, late term and partial birth. SCOTUS agreed by not granting cert That stance was enough for me using citizens rights as tool. Added to that go ahead and make that a federal law in that manner then get out of the business and let the States do there's and be left alone. As we've seen the Sick Frogs my code for Sec-ular Prog-ressives have decided to use any and all issues to get their way. But for the moment the abortion issue became less important.

                Social Security became the third rail and avoiding the problem became real third rail.

                Changing the constitution without an amendment should be in that position. But it's moot at this point.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
            Really? hmmmm I don't believe that to be true. I believe just the opposite. If we are still talking about centers or are we on to evil? Has a paradigm shift occurred?

            Evil - That which I know to be wrong (add any number of descriptive adjectives) Good - That which I know to be right. (same qualifiers) An evil act.Doing that which my personal moral code had deemed to be wrong full well knowing I am committing and act of evil. Compounding the evil act. Blaming it on someone else or a higher authority and asking for clemency for same.

            Or are we back to center.

            The Constitution was the center of political discourse for the former USA. Now it's the center of the left or whatever G. Lakoff and Looney Clooney, or Obeyme proclaim for that day.

            Doesn't apply I don't serve the Party.

            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
              Do you think that President Obama knows the difference between right and wrong/good and evil? I personally think that he thinks that good is evil and that evil is good.
              Perhaps only good people are capable of being good and when seduced by evil intentions/promises and fall for them, the good person moves towards the Middle?

              I see a pattern to all of this slide toward the middle and consequently the end of this country and individual rights.

              Currently, in this country, good is viewed as "what's best for the greatest number". That is the first step toward the "middle".

              The next step is: Get enough "votes" (rule by concensus) and your rights are voted away from the individual (second move...more slide toward the dark side).

              Third: Steal through legislation/regulation.

              Fourth: Make no legal recourse against the government.

              Fifth: Take everything from the "makers" in the name of giving to the takers because that is what is for the "greater good" (but the loot will go to the hierarchy).

              That is the definition of evil when it comes to government. We are moving very rapidly toward the end. Watch for President Obama never leaving office...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
                We aren't sliding towards the middle. That's the Constitution. We're slippery sloping to the far left. Just because they claim the center of the left as the center doesn't make it so. Besides they'll change the definition tomorrow. I see no movement in the direction of the center or any compass marginally in that direction. Marx yes, Engels yes, Adolf yes, Lenin Yes, Lakoff yes.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
                  Indeed.
                  They are good at redefining reality!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
                    OK here's Part II. To make the left right system really work you have a vertical up down component that sort of slides along to where you think the center is located.

                    At the top, in the really old days was God who gave divine right to monarchs 2nd spot working down, who had a group of supporters henchmen, Barons, protective echelon, who supervised everything from Bankers to Enablers and political parties. this is where it crosses the left to right system. next moochers and 'the faithful' and on do to citizens, people, and flyovers of various who cares descriptions oh yes and baby factories and draftees.

                    Two things.

                    Above God is a group sometime called the Establishment.

                    At the point where one crosses the others are something called media and educators. they slide along for the ride sort of clearing the way.

                    There is an escape hatch.

                    Climb down the vertical bar and jump off to the land of expats and others who aren't playing the game anymore. it's a long walk back to the point on solid earth that is beneath the center point marked Constitution or any of it's major ideas but the scenery is magnificent.

                    Now the whole thing is automated and sort of flys between two extremes NYC and LA.

                    Looking down those on top see what they call flyover country. Nothing important. Occasionally see people. Not worth commenting on.

                    Down below people look up and as the parade passes look at each other and comment.

                    What bunch of amazing a**holes.

                    Armed with this system everything makes sense except the parts that make no sense.

                    Dangling down is a sort of hose. watch out for that. it's a vacuum It takes all cents.

                    And that's how it works. complete non sense turned into an understandable fiction of reality or is it reality of friction.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
                      I have said for many years now that this country will eventually be divided into two parts...or probably three.

                      The friction, uplift and subduction of tectonic plates eventually leads to an earthquake.

                      The same principles apply to politics...and there's a LOT of "stress" building up.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
        that is your middle.

        my middle is a dividing line called viabilty. I guess only letting the female side of the equation choose is endorsement of baby factories and fun donors?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
          Clarification:
          The "middle" Is compromising/sacrificing your self-interest or your knowledge of what is best for you for the sake of another or the hope that "approval of others" will trump your ability to own yourself.

          Think of Peter Keating/Katherine.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
            I was thinking more of my self. but your definition is ok for you - and only on that one particular issue.

            Where is or more properly where was the political center of the USA?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by teri-amborn 7 years, 10 months ago
              Every move toward a political "center" has moved this nation further and further toward totalitarianism.
              Washington wants you to think that it is "Right vs. left" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but in reality it has been a subtle whittling away of individual rights.

              IDK if there wan't a "center" that was created by these evil people in order to move toward it and justify the slow enslavement of the individual.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
                If you want one that makes sense forget Washington and the media and PC and the rest of that and try a simple formula that immediately explains things such as"Why do Republicans always cave to the Democrats?"

                Using the Constitution (since no one else is) as the Center ....if you believe ....

                Government Controls People = Left
                (by their choice)

                People control Government = Right
                (using the space abandoned by the King who did the Ruler by Divine Right trick

                But Citizens Controlling Government was the whole point of the Constitution. Nothing mugwump about it.

                Took about two decades for the former established aristocracy to star whittling away and re-institute neo- feudalism

                Extremists the right Anarchists.

                Not much population in those areas any more.

                Extremists to the left Communists and Nazis or International and and National Socialism. Secular Progressives, Socialists including Democrats and Rino Republicans who are the right wing of the left

                Use that system everything is clear.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 7 years, 10 months ago
    Hear, hear, Esceptico!

    Yes, obviously there is the "black and white" of reason. Establishing the context in which black and white is shown to clearly exist is the difficult part! Those constantly looking only for black and white, at the exclusion of the immensity of the gray, must lead desperately unhappy lives!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 7 years, 10 months ago
    As a generalization, Galt commits a logical fallacy here. His statement is a good example of the “Fallacy of the False Dilemma” (also known as false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, false alternative, black-or-white fallacy) of claiming two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there may be one or more options. Thus the statement can properly be applied only in a very strict discussion as distinct from a general discussion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago
      That is not what the quote says. It is fallacy only in your rewriting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 7 years, 10 months ago
        I did not re-write it, I was responding to how it was written in this thread. However, when I checked Atlas it said "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil" and that looks to me as if the quotation is accurate. Which means, I do not understand your comment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 10 months ago
          Probably AR was responding to Hegelianism, in which there are two opposing ideas. One introduces the mixture of the two ideas, resulting in a movement toward the idea that one wants to achieve. If that's the case, then AR wasn't the only one to consider only two possibilities, and we can see how that approach is taking place before our eyes. Now, imagine performing that synthesis over and over over 200 years, and it's no surprise that we see what we see.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago
            No she wasn't responding to Hegel. And it doesn't say that any two positions must exhaust the possibilities. She was talking about compromise.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo