3RU7AL

I am still fuzzy on the term, but when we talk about cancellation "culture" I am seeing a lot examples (like Trump above) calling for boycotts & protests but very little action.  Actual censorship seems to be a very tiny subset of the behavior people are calling cancel culture.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!

...the Earth was known to be spheroid long before  the U.S.A. or N.A.S.A. were first thought of.

The reality in my observation is that many Americans see the flag as representing the shared ideas which bring us together as a nation,

...hundreds of thousands of reasonable people are invalidating the impeachment proceedings...

Hume's Guillotine: you can NEVER logically derive an "OUGHT" from an "IS".

There's your kritik.

I think I know what you mean, but elaborate?

B: you "ought" to put on a coat.

B: because it "is" snowing.

B: snow "is" cold.

B: (IFF) cold outside (AND) you go outside without a coat (THEN) you will also become cold

B: (IFF) you get too cold (THEN) you will die

B: I want you to live (this is an opinion, not a fact) and you "ought" to also want to live (this is an opinion, not a fact).

On the other hand, the risk of the healthy person contracting COVID-19 from a masked, infected person is 5 per cent.

Elite politicians cant be allowed label and censor everything they don't like as a "theatrical fire"

There is  a 1.5% contagion probability between a COVID-19 carrier and a non-carrier both wearing masks

...and calls were made to censor Chomsky over this.

Prove they help showing irrefutable science.

Viruses always travel together, there is no such thing as a singular virus infecting you. Masks help.

It's as though people think the mask works in one direction and not the other. Mind boggling.

and the main point isn't even to protect you, it's to protect others.

I don't want to get into this discussion again, it's just too obvious that we should wear masks.

Since all our institutions tend to decline until they fail and get replaced, I think we must limit ourselves to technologies that have an acceptable cost of failure."...

2} integrity, not only of the institution but of the individual, ex we have the institution { CIA or Israel or both }

And almost every source besides that says it does.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

This entire "story" is meaningless. I don't understand why the right thinks this is some huge scandal. 

In 1913, somebody falsely yelled "fire" at a packed Christmas Party in Michigan and 73 people were crushed to death in the panic.

The shouting FIRE analogy originates from a Supreme Court argument adjudicated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who used the analogy as an example of speech that First Amendment does not protect.

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" is the relevant aphorism.

The literal problem is that people still refuse to wear masks that ARE DESIGNED to filter COVID-19.

The literal problem you state is complete BS. There is not one credible scientific study that shows wearing masks that do nothing to filter a virus does anything. You are told it does and you believe it. I defy you to show any scientific study that shows definitively that masks not designed to filter viruses in fact have any effect at filtering them. You walk around people without  masks all the time, if what you say was true you would have gotten sick by now. The absurdity of what you and the CDC call reducing the spread is laughable. People sitting in the same room while  others standing ten feet away, some wearing a mask  and the others not is absolutely laughable. Any virologist would just look at you like you were insane. Just because you repeat something over and over does not make it true nor does someone telling you something over and over. The real science and the real controls are in SWEDEN. Sweden's approach blows everything you say to shreds. Don't even try to dismiss Sweden. That is a control study of over 10 million people. There is no difference in infection rates and they do no lockdowns and don't require masks. Again that is a control sample of 10 million people. I will wait for your definitive scientific proof that wearing masks that do nothing to filter a virus reduces the spread of a virus. Oh and your attempts to totally dismiss Sweden.

Remember when McCarthy waved a piece of paper that he claimed had a list of 205 communists working for the State Dept. ? The fact that the paper was never submitted into evidence or ever seen again was irrelevant, the McCarthyists were required to believe in red panic and so the witch hunt proceeded.

Isn't much of the point of govt to carry out efficient, profitable measures that would be considered immoral if conducted without govt sanction?

Lol how do you get moral skepticism from that topic? I think I'm missing the angle

"ought" is in the resolution. If we don't ought do do anything, we don't ought to institute a jobs guarantee. My impression is that it'd work the same with any normative topic. 

P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 

True north or the North Pole is.

What practical value is an abstract "truth" if nobody knows what it is?

Why do you think no one knows and how do you know that?

God is able to say what He means. 

And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)

Why can't Christians agree?

First off, do you believe truth is discernable? 

The problem is that way too often we collapse passages, ignore context, ignore the relevant audience of address, ignore time statements, misunderstand the difference between biblical culture and our own, and a whole host of reasons. Having said that, Scripture makes it clear there is a correct way i=of interpreting God's word. You have to understand what the Author is saying to get His meaning. That means not reading into His words something He has not said or does not convey. You also have to build line upon line, precept upon precept. An isolated passage can very often lead to a pretext.

Did morality exist before Abraham?

Yes.

You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".

You have to believe that God exists before you will come to Him.

Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how. 

Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.

Then I say what is say is morally wrong!

You never explain why your relative standard is or can be better than anyone else's?

Is it because you believe it?

Does that make something good?

Then two opposing and contrary standards (a logical absurdity) can both be right depending upon who holds what view?

Without a fixed identity for a moral prescription, what makes it good/right?

Is it force? If you force me to believe 'it' does that make it good/right?

If Kim Jong Un kidnaps you and forces you..., is that then good/right? He believes so. Why is your belief any 'better' than his? 

We are to drive out sinful practices or deeds from our lives so that they do not rule over us so we can have a close relationship with God.