3RU7AL

those words there comprised of are objective

The hypocrisy that often comes up from doing military acts on other nations is that "it only counts if someone does it to us" or "it was justified, what they did wasn't" or other things like that. 

Because the majority do not want to share restrooms with the opposite gender.

I will further add that even the pro-choice argument of viability [able to function post-womb] is being accomplished at earlier and earlier points in gestation, completely obliterating the idea of not just late, but mid-term abortion. The record is a successful premature birth at nineteen weeks.

Isn’t the word object a word?

Guess it's time for the aliens to come in and eradicate us with a superflu.

yet going by a human DNA standard,

which infringes on bodily autonomy of the mother,

Humans have a right to die a natural death - therefore humans have no right to kill each other, including through abortion

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can argue all you like about it being non-distinguishable, but it is still there. It wouldn't matter if humanity was never here, the universe objectively existed. You are incorrect here.

Do FACTS have words?

I don’t understand that question, so are you going to defend your claim or not?

no one is disputing that definitions have words,

Please support this definition of fact because every source you cited said nothing of the sort.

now, without minds, there would be nothing to acknowledge or perceive them, but it is not the same thing.

Yes, you can, that is light, that is the earth, etc, etc, you totally can.

there are things that are not dependent on the mind for existence

Just to make a distinction, I typically agree with what you're going on about;

however, if you are to assume that our senses are reliable then there are things which exist regardless of us as individuals,

and things that do not -

hence the difference between constructs and objects,

but if you were to not have that assumption then your position would be correct.

As the previously stated assumption is needed for logical conversation, it is the one I make.

Conservatives understand it just fine, we just aren't going to make policy upending the majority for a rare aberration.

So in other words everything is not what it seems

and if you truly believed this then you would realize that a reality exists independently from your mind,

kinda like the definition of objectivity 🤔.

And no I’m not saying that at all

you came out of left field with that narrative all on your own.

I would not say logically necessary equals existence.

Any chair which was maximally great would not need to rely on matter or space to exist.

Any chair which was maximally great would not be constrained by the materials which you have listed. 

It holds the greatest qualities of a chair, therefore any chair which would be greater, say - a chair which exists without matter - must be the chair that we are describing.

If a being is contingent,  it came into being and can go out of being.  If it is necessary it did not come into being and cannot go out of being.  This is self evidently greater

I could replace the word god with marduk, since a marduk that exists is greater than one that does not right? But that doesn't make him exist.

 though developmental aberrations sometimes occur.

There is an important distinction between the two.

Even permanent servitude was voluntary.

What needs to be taken into account is that in small government states, families become much more accountable to their own families and they do this because they are much more involved with their own communities and generally know what is going on.

Obviously in a system where abortion is legal and free and medical staff are available - the numbers of abortions will be better regulated and known.

...Well the objectively correct words should be used.

Would you care if we called it an inter-subjective FACT?

No, but I would care if we you reject it as an objective fact.

Why do you care whether or not we call "the shape of the earth" an "objective fact"?

Because I believe things should be represented as they are.

You're saying that the "literal object" does not rely on detection or description.

You're saying that the "literal object itself" does not rely on detection (by a human mind) or description (by a human mind).

What do you mean by “literal object”?

I don’t care the only reason I brought up the shape of the earth is because it’s an example of an objective fact, also caring about objective facts has no bearing on its objectivity FYI.

every public washroom?

not my call, is it?

Those verses use the word "slave" in the ancient Hebrew context.

I have shown, by a proper read of the OED, that gender and sex are the same thing. I'll take authority over counter culture any day. The OED trumps APADP every day

How can you tell, without violating a person's bodily privacy, whether or not they are a "girl" or a "boy" or some (non-binary) mix of the two?

Maryland v. King [2013] SCOTUS decision determined that a buccal swab [saliva test] is not invasion of privacy, [does not violate the 4A and 14A] and a buccal swab will tell you exactly that.

A necessary being however,  is a being whose existence is not explained by a prior or outside reality, but one whose existence is explained in its own nature. It exists because it is existence. Not because it was actualized by a prior cause.

I can't grant any premise until you define what it means for a mode of existence to be "greater" or "superior" than another.

then His existence must be in the mode of necessity not contingency,