This is Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki
Recent Activity
--I had the same view until someone in my family had COVID. The virus apparently affects people randomly, but for many who contract the virus it is horrible.-- I think the actual numbers show that for a few it is horrible and for a very, very few who are not suffering from one or more comorbidities, are not obese and not over 70 it can sometimes be. And I wouldn't say "random" is the word to describe a bug of which ~90% of the victims are aged and obese. Of those who do appear random I suspect they have some genetic makeup or vulnerability or dietary deficiency [vit D?] that isn't obvious but still allows the bug to run wild. We have a decent idea what causes a lot of heart disease and cancer, which both kill a lot more than the wuflu and yet I don't see many people cowering in their homes afraid of their shadows lest they contact a carcinogen or eat something that will give them heart disease. In fact obesity is the cause of considerably more early deaths than wuflu and yet not only is little done about it, we're actually in the middle of a push to normalize if not encourage one of the most deadly, unhealthy things known to man. Can the bug harm you? Sure. Are the odds high enough to worry about unless you're in a high risk group? Not in my opinion, but you may have a different one, which is fine.
I'm getting a little confused by the 'follow the science guys'. The FDA/CDC places a pause on the J&J vaccine for the same issue and component that Europe restricted the Astra Zeneca vaccine and so now TM and The Goon and the other vaccine cowboys think we should what? Break into pharmacies and start giving the J&J to ourselves? Gosh if the pause even saves just one life it was worth it...for the chilrun. The authoritarians drum up this terror filled frenzy over a bug that is of very little concern to anyone not ancient and already quite sick and then they're shocked when people panic over other low risk problems? LOLGF In a sane world both problems would be near the bottom of anyone's concerns but our culture decided sanity was a supremacist privilege we could no long afford. The sad thing is many of the previously sane now consider it an unnecessary luxury also. Or perhaps they weren't as rational as they appeared and the times have removed the mask.
The Yellow Goon gives examples of REAL Rep leadership lately - Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney.
So if a black male cop intentionally shoots an unarmed white woman and is not charged with anything while a white woman cop accidentally shoots an unarmed black man and is charged with manslaughter it sounds like we have reached black supremacy and therefore EQUITY! Hooray, we're free and Big Mike can finally be proud of her country.
There does seem to be some genetic predisposition or vulnerability to most personality disorders and other mental illnesses, Jane. For instance in borderline personality disorder ~75% of cases have a traceable traumatic event or continuing situation that triggered the disorder. The rest don't and are pretty hard to explain except by genetics.
--I realize that comments are often abbreviated and the fullness of one's thought may not be represented by a quote. Your longer explanation is a reasonable argument. Your short one has a postmodern feel to it, whether you want to admit it or not.-- So now you know why my comments [and sentences] are so long. :)
Fair enough Appalled. I am not stating as a fact he has one or a combo of those mental illnesses but his patterns of behavior indicate something beyond the usual pathologies of addiction. If I had to guess, he seems somewhat less reckless than a "typical" anti social or psychopath. Narcissists tend to be more calculating and careful, though still reckless compared to a "neurotypical". The nine traits of the narcissist; A grandiose sense of self-importance Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love Belief that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions Requires excessive admiration Has a sense of entitlement Is interpersonally exploitative – takes advantage of others Lacks empathy Envies others or believes others are envious of him or her Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes Presence of five is sufficient for a diagnosis. From afar I see at least five very strongly in Hunter Biden's behavior. I'm guessing up close probably all of them are there. He was almost three when his mother died which is an extremely common age for trauma to create attachment issues and personality disorders. Toss in an enabling dimbulb like Joe and the wretch probably didn't have much of a chance.
And if your comment was more sincere than first glance indicated, the traits I mentioned weren't random. They are some of the primary indicators of those three mental illnesses.
I am using primarily his own words and actions as recorded on his computer and through other published reports along with my extensive experience with and research into personality disorders. I note you started your quote right below the sentence where I stated "I would say..." his behavior is not a product of his addictions which is a clear admission I am stating an opinion as is the fact I offered up three different afflictions he may have or some combination thereof. If you're gonna try a gotcha, you might practice on some imbeciles first.
--The conclusion then -- you can't trust anything. You can only trust yourself and the people who agree with you. And you can only pray that on every day of the week you are right about everything.-- That is certainly the conclusion one could draw...if you weren't serious and were looking to score points against someone who asks questions that you don't have answers for or if you're a moron. I'll be charitable and assume the former applies in your case. The correct conclusion to draw is that all people are unreliable to one extent or another and skepticism is always warranted. It is especially warranted in an adversarial procedure and even more so in one so socially and politically charged. And that skepticism should always increase when the party giving their opinion is being aid for it. The only thing more concerning is when they step up and refuse to be paid. And given those truths one must weigh the available factual evidence and its reliability and the conclusions and opinions various parties derive from those facts and come to a synthesis of our own educated guess as to what most probably happened. Only an idiot takes anyone's opinion as the gospel except in extraordinary circumstances. This is not one of them. The fact in this case is Floyd had enough fentanyl and other drugs in him to cause his heart to stop. Do we now that is what caused it? No. No one does. But the prosecution's expert testified to a dead certainty that the drugs did not kill him and SWC accepted that opinion as established fact, even though the evidence introduced by the prosecution itself demonstrated that those levels of drugs often do cause cardiac arrest and death. The expert was wrong to offer it as fact and anyone is wrong to accept it as fact. Some things are unknowable and some of the most dangerous people on earth are the ones who pretend like they do know. The second most dangerous are those who pretend that they know the guy who says he knows is correct. Let Feynman be your guide; science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Any expert that comes along and feigns a complete lack of ignorance and affects complete certainty in a complex case with many complicating and interwoven factors, that he neither witnessed nor did the examination of and for which there is almost zero data for what was occurring while Floyd died is stating as a fact something that he cannot know as a fact. That in itself should increase any thinking person's skepticism of his opinion.
--“Do you think if any of the Trump children ever tried to get a job outside of their father’s business that his name wouldn’t figure into the calculation?”-- You know, it's tempting to consider a case like his the product of his addictions, but I would say that is incorrect in his case. In his case the addictions are the self medicating product of his case of either anti social PD, narcissism or psychopathy or some combination thereof. He is exceedingly manipulative, uses others as props, has no moral compass whatsoever, is devoid of empathy for others but always paints himself as the pitiful victim, seems to be a pathological liar, has a galaxy sized sense of entitlement and self importance and is, as in this case, the king of projection. How did he get into the Navy - daddy. How did a drunken drug addict get appointed to boards and handed scores of millions - daddy. How has this low life criminal maggot stayed out of prison - daddy. Were his useless father not an enabling Senator and so on he would already have died in an alley or prison cell somewhere, either at his own hands or someone elses.
Shipwreckedcrew is good until he isn't. Read a thing he did on the Chauvin trial and in it he accepted at face value the precise argument one of the prosecution expert's gave for Floyd's death as though it were a fact and not his opinion and he did so, obviously, prior to any testimony to the contrary. At what point do people give up thinking for themselves and abandon the acknowledgment that in such complex matters experts are largely making educated guesses and the unpleasant fact we can almost never assume those guesses are the product of dispassionate analysis free of cant and partisanship, especially in a charged case like this? And especially when the team the expert is working for has shown itself to be quite partisan and dishonest in the very case he's supporting?
--one of 97 cops killed in the line of duty in this country so far this year-- Is that number correct? 100 used to be about a whole years' worth.
I thought Pin's supposed Socrates quote earlier sounded like one of those misattributed quotes that pop up so often; Apparently it was.
--Journalists' brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning...-- There appears to me to be at least one, probably two, superfluous words in that sentence.
I like the cut of this Michael Smith's jib. Saves me oodles of time rewriting the same thing over and over. Now, if I just had Appalled blocked I could get a lot more done. :)
God bless the Babylon Bee; 'It Is Still Not Safe To Go Outside,' Says Fauci's Head In A Jar In Year 2739
Could you drop Appalled off in the 17th century on the way, MM?
--The Glorious Revolution (whic gave the UK William of Orange) really does not count.-- LOL Enjoy your cherry pie there, fella.
--I write to complain that I thought Texas was open, but as far as I can tell, all businesses still require masks.-- You guys need to come to beautiful communist California where the progs dare not step beyond their enclaves apparently. Very few businesses require masks. All the restaurants are open. Other than vulnerable people, almost no one worried about social distancing or shaking hands. People are free to wear, or if they're not stupid, to not wear a mask.
--England -- Start with a King. End with a different King. France. Start with a King. End with a King. USA --Start with a bunch of loosely organized colonies. End with loosely aligned states. Russia. Start with an absolute despot. End with an absolute despot. Spain. Start with a King and his fascist minister. (Primo de Rivera). End with a fascist. Iran -- Start with a corrupt tyranny with a shah. End with a corrupt tyranny with an Ayatollah. There are a lot of deaths in between. That doesn't keep the status quo from coming back, because in their hearts, that's what they want.-- Looks like my advice to you to read more history was more trenchant than I knew. England - Start with a King. End with a Constitutional Monarchy in which parliament and the people have vastly expanded powers and the remnants of feudalism died. France - Start with a King. End with an Emperor. USA - Start with a King and a parliament running roughshod over the self governing rights of Englishmen. End up with the greatest nation and form of government in the history of the world. Russia - Start with a Czar who was weak and a tyrant but a reform minded one. End with one of the two or three most monstrously brutal and totalitarian states in history. Spain - who cares? No one, but it is worth noting that Franco is not generally considered a fascist except by Marxists. Iran - start with an authoritarian Shah open to Western values and generally relatively tolerant. End with a totalitarian theocracy and kleptocracy. Now, to any thinking person England and the USA are really the only two even worth considering in the context of your criticisms of my position. In the other four you had authoritarian despots and monarchs who were certainly tyrants but of a long and relatively stable variety [except for the Shah]. Those four all turned out quite awful for a time because they were all revolutions involving totalitarian would be tyrants overthrowing a much more benign tyranny for the purpose of ruling absolutely and through sheer terror and brutality. To equate the before and after is to gloss over and to dishonor the many millions upon millions of victims of the various New Orders. It is worth noting that the ideological ancestors of the people assuming power here perpetrated the three most brutal regimes in history - the socialists, of both the national and international varieties. In England and the USA where you had relatively mild despots opposed by people intent on self governance and lessening the reach and power of government you had perhaps the two greatest leaps forward in general political [and economic] freedom for more citizens than ever before. Your characterizations of these events is, to be charitable, idiotic and beneath even the new and unimproved Appalled. Lastly, the revolt that will almost certainly be precipitated by Marx and Engels' children here will be one in which those of us who you find so revolting, will be doing so to reestablish what the revolting Founders originally established. While such events are awful and violent and usually pretty unpredictable, the odds are what results will be rather better than the corrupted, dishonorable betrayal of every glorious principle our Founding established. And the dispensation to hell of the Maoist principles slowly strangling the USA will be a Great Leap Forward, so to speak.
Appears to me the greatest cause if mass shootings is progs wanting to take guns from people. Every time they try someone conveniently massacres somebody. I'd say we need prog propaganda control. Seriously, if it could be established conclusively that their reporting contributes to it then why shouldn't they be muzzled if gunowners can lose their rights? Why can't they be held liable if gun manufacturers can? Why shouldn't their stories be subject to a national instant responsible reporting check?
Tom Bowler's entire comment is excellent. Part of it: --And there's the ticket! For example, anyone thinking the 2020 election was not conducted flawlessly and honestly is obviously a deranged threat. Thus, the dangerous people can be identified and prevented from acquiring firearms. A piece of cake once health care is taken over through the public option.-- Even reasonable TM was agreeing in the last thread with the yellow loon that anyone who doesn't believe the 2020 election was the very model of fastidiously clean, legal and upright operations and that Trump came within a whisker of leading the deplorable rabble to the slaughter of our brave congress and installing himself as the Der Orange Fuehrer of the MAGAReich is "insane". The progs call us deplorable and irredeemable and racist and fascist and then begin intimating we're off our rockers and need to be deprogrammed or reeducated. After all that they then say 'maybe we shouldn't let anyone own a gun who we judge to be off their rocker' and wonder why we think just maybe they have an agenda behind their rhetoric. If progs ever learn to keep their mouths shut before they do what they really intend we'll really be in trouble.
--Iggy -- The thing about revolutions -- and this includes the right wing revolution that you envision -- is that they rarely accomplish all that much. You end up at the same place you were at before all the tumult began. Moderates always end up before the firing squad or (if lucky) exiled.-- If by envision you mean desire then you aren't paying attention. Nor is this remotely like the 1890s where you had a coherent culture and strong institutions that despite whatever problems the country had kept the government's overriding thirst for power in check while society slowly adapted through cultural and extant political institutions and means. TR in fact is a perfect example of what we don't need because the present mess is the logical end of his career. He rode roughshod over those institutions and as the first official Progressive president set us on the last 100+ years of government accretion of power and the destruction of federalism. He is especially responsible through his irresponsible electing of Wilson when he didn't get his way and went all Bull Moose. Ideas have consequences. Not only that but they're real, The culture has slowly and then suddenly been subverted and is now owned not by liberals or even neoliberals. The ideas animating not just the Dem party but much of the culture including education, the academe, the media, you name it, is largely the direct fruit and derivatives of Marx. Not JFK. Not MLK. K Marx. We know what the consequences of those ideas are and I struggle to think of a time when those consequences were done away with peacefully. I do not "envision" a revolution. I anticipate one being thrust on us because the Marxists and their much more numerous enablers are systematically closing off every avenue of peaceful political change available. When those are gone those who wish to retain their liberty and autonomy from the state face the choice of submitting to being ruled or revolting. You can wish that away and pretend it is the brave moderates who get shot but that is baloney. If you asked any Good Germans if they were immoral or blind to the compromises they were making they would say exactly the things you are. That's the entire point of the Good German example. They didn't decide one day "Gee I think I'll become a Nazi monster today". They told themselves "Yeah this Hitler guy isn't very nice but he's a lot better than those Weimar guys. And those deplorable Jews...yeah they used to be ok but lately they're sounding pretty crazy too. The guy has a point." And they believed and/or accepted things that just a few years before they would have recoiled from in horror because that became the cultural milieu they swam in in the same way so many "moderates" are now. Accepting and endorsing things that 20 years ago you would have rightly considered radical is not moderation, it's capitulation. And it's what you are doing whether you know or admit that or not. --You end up at the same place you were at before all the tumult began.-- This part of it is ahistorical and I'd call it silly if it didn't ignore the hundreds of millions of corpses all those "tumults" produced. The left/right paradigm is a false one, There are revolutions and movements that seek to impose totalitarianism on nations and a few that seek to remove or avert tyranny. The French, Russian, Chinese, German, Italian and the many subsidiary but similar revolutions most assuredly did not end up in the same place they started. They ended up in hell because those running them sought to replace authoritarian and/or corrupt and weak governments with all-powerful, totalitarian ones. The American one did not end up in the same place either. Unlike the tyrannical ones it ended up in a better place because we sought to remove the shackles of arbitrary power and replace them with self governance. And this one, if and when it occurs will bear far more resemblance to our first one than the others because arbitrary power is coalescing in this country in the form of a Progressive, Oligarchical and Marxist ruling class and those of us resisting it want to restore what they are in the process of stealing. You can't or won't see that and there's nothing I can do to make you see it. But Trotsky's war is interested in you and you will see it eventually.
--Each compromise is a step towards civil war, because you didn't choose the right evil. (Yes, Iggy, I have your many comments in mind.)-- Go read some Santayana. Then go read some history of the various revolutions of the last 250 years. Then go read some James Burnham and Eric Hoffer. Then go read some Whittaker Chambers. Then go read some Solzhenitsyn. Then if you still are surprised when we are condemned to repeat the history you just read at least you can't say it was because you weren't educated about what is coming.