3RU7AL

How about his messaging and promotion of the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen?

That is a conspiracy theory all by itself- you are alleging that "the News" is working together to prevent this story when the fact is that this story is all over "the news"

Because they just have no motive to further advertise video evidence of their mismanagement.

A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.

Where'd you get this definition?

Do you not think incitement of civil unrest that contributed to tangible violent actions was a sensible point to ban him?

Election Fraud 2020: Capitol ‘Siege’ | Red Flags Point to Orchestrated False Flag ‘Insurrection’

https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@jasonliberty/election-fraud-2020-capital-siege-or-red-flags-point-to-orchestrated-false-flag-insurrection

"As for disturbing videos we've all seen that seem to show some officers letting rioters behind barricades & taking selfies with them: I can assure you these videos are being thoroughly investigated & there will be consequences for any deviations from proper training & protocols." - Tim Ryan (Chairman of the Appropriations Committee over the Capitol Police)

That's pretty much all we've gotten so far, that I'm aware of. They know it looks fishy as hell. They've already confiscated texts and emails from all the Capitol police at the riot.

BECAUSE IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL.

How do you know this? Anybody can call a false claim tautological, what do you think fallacies are?

a gift bag is an arbitary gift

ancestory is something that is handed own only to you and precious

We're going to make the assumption that God is animate (living) correct?

Lets do something entirely different than what normally happens, lets see how quickly we can agree and move forward! we do that by using very simple and efficient reasoning and rapidly move ahead. So when I say something that makes sense and you can agree with it, let me know and then we take steps from there.

Playing word games will seriously annoy me, so its up to you here where progress goes. 

I don't want this to become a game of semantics as many of your conversations become. Lets just try and be focused and rational here or I will become bored very quickly.

I wouldn't label anything living as a thing,

if you're not willing to commit to being conscious are you not willing to say this Being is alive??

God is a conscious (living) Being,

lets just say God is a person,

We're going to make the assumption that God is animate (living) correct?

"the ability to learn or understand (reason)"

"the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment

or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria"

...a reality beyond the natural world that cannot be detected or demonstrated...

I don't know what a "super-reality" is supposed to be

By "super-reality", I mean something above and beyond the reality that can be observed and/or demonstrated. It's reality+.

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

We should therefore conclude that the reason you had not heard a single peep was because you haven't paid attention to much mainstream media on the subject.

I argued that "the news" was not covering up the story because I've have seen regular reporting of this story since the hour it happened. 

THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.

WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.

I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.

You offered a conspiracy theory that "the news" had covered up the story of Capitol Hill police allowing rioter passage unopposed.  

There was an incident in Oregon where it was a republican lawmaker who opened the door and let the protesters in to the building. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/oregon-legislator-entry-protest-december-trnd/index.html

Why are you so certain that this video must have taken place at the opening moments of the storming in spite of the fact that the end of the video shows the building already filled with rioters.

What I do know is that FACTS can only be statements which are implicit claims.

How do you know this?

Legally we waive prosecuting soldiers for conflict since they are rarely the instigators.

There’s no when and where in regards to this fact but the shape of the earth was a fact before it was a concept or a statement for that matter.

How do you know this?

I don’t but you don’t know that it wasn’t either, which was your initial claim that humans had to approve facts.

A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.

If I were to claim the Flying Spaghetti Monsters is necessary for morality, it would not be your burden to disprove it, but mine to prove it. Stop avoiding to honour your burden of proof.

So is atheism more reasonable that theism then?.......1157 posts and I'm none the wiser.

5 out of 5 for trusting Authority.

3r, your confused.  No where have I stated what your suggesting. stick to truth and facts and your make more rational, logical common sense.

Jail Trumpet and his supporters NOW!

There’s no when and where in regards to this fact but the shape of the earth was a fact before it was a concept or a statement for that matter.

It's like being "proud" of a free gift bag.

no it is not

Yes but facts aren’t limited as statements, simply stating something doesn’t make it fact.

FACT is a concept.

It can be but it’s not limited to.

It is twitters website, they can ban whoever they like. Ideally sure they would be consistent and apply some form of objectivity to it but I don't see an issue with sites banning people if they are not controlled by any government form. Obviously, I am assuming twitter is not some secret part of what the opposite of Trump is but ideally just ban both presidents or all presidents and have their PR be the only ones allowed to post. That is their prerogative. It is their website. Same with Facebook all these places it is their website, sure they are smarmy and lie but if a site were truly honest and said "Hey we don't like your kind" then so be it, move along. Sites like those should then die out.
If anything Trump can just go take care of his trash some other way, Twitter hopefully then does take a stance against more of the things they feel do not align and hopefully are at least clear and honest about that with the knowledge they will lose plenty of users.
Bit of a mishmash really, as in there can be precedent set by a centralized social site for actual transparency about what they like vs trying to please the majority or whatever.
Will be interesting to see the twitter side. I have no interest for the other side which is just a breaking point in a system so tense with , I want to say retardation, that really any breaking point is worth watching and seeing what burns.

The videos of police just letting people through, taking selfies etc are disturbing. 

Not everyone who disagrees with you is "an idiot".

Statements and concepts like "shape" and arbitrary names like "earth" do not exist without humans, they do not exist "independently of a human mind".

Facts is more than a statement or concept, it’s truth and the truth always exists.

I didn't say intentions were the only thing that mattered.

Now there's a can of selectively moral worms that's always open.