949havoc

-->

@3RU7AL

Actions are (EITHER) influenced (OR) not-influenced

Yes, by free agency of choice - each of us independenttly.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

From whence came the raw materials,
The workers.

No, The supplier of raw materials is a contracted supply chain, not the workers of your sandwich enterprise. See, you do suck the Marx tit, and it isn't giving your milk. Design failure? No, just sucking at the wrong sex. By your thinking, the baby produces its own milk. Nope. Sorry. I'll wager Marx is just as clueless. You're 2 down.

Who developed the marketing plan
Everyone needs sandwiches. You don't have to convince anyone who cares about themselves to eat a sandwich.

Again, no. Customers are the recipients of a marketing plan, not the producer. And, again, Marx fails because he does not even account for marketing in his business plan. 0 for 3.

Who produced the sandwich?
The workers

Well, you got one right, but, you're still wrong elsewise [from another thread] because of all the people involved in the sandwich enterprise, the workers take the highest percentage of the profit; upward of 30%. You cannot split 100% into nine equal disbursements of 30% [and that's not all the pieces of the pie], can you? I give you 1/2 point. 0.5 for 4.

Who is selling the sandwich? Who is coordinating payment? Who is guaranteeing the sandwich's satisfaction? Who will follow-up on the customer's reaction?
The workers
The workers
The workers

Workers, ie, direct labor, i.e., the proletariate, do not fill any of those functions, they are indirect labor. Marx ignored them, too. 0.5 for 7 Got to know you enterprise functions and the proper work designations. You apparently do not.

Who is paying all those who contributed to the sandwich's design through payroll efforts?
The customers most of whom are workers. They even pay the owners, CEOs etc.

Wrong, again. That one was a trick question. Pay is paid by the payroll department, another indirect labor. Yes, the funds come from gross profit, which, by reason, is no longer owned by the customer, who has product, a sandwich, in trade for their cost for the sandwich. Marx ignored that department, too, by oversimplification. 0.5 for 8.

You missed "Who is coordinating payment?" The last trick question, and It is not the same people who actually meet the payroll. It's actually either finance, or human resources in most enterprises. 0.5 for 9, or 5%. That's a Fail, by the way. Go back to school, and this time, give Marx the boot. He is not even a proper teacher, let alone a lemonade entrepreneur. As for sandwiches, a more complicated product than lemonade, is completely beyond him. But you call him a relevant critic of capitalism. Pardon my laughing. Hell, he doesn't even describe socialism as its practiced today.

If you're bored by your job,
This is not the fundamental issue.

This has resulted in useless jobs and unnecessary components of jobs being common place and also to a necessary amount of unemployed individuals.

Seems its a hot button for you. Just sayin'

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

https://stacker.com/stories/5483/50-inventions-you-might-not-know-were-funded-us-government

That fails to answer the specific question you highlighted; one of fully nine questions I posed. This answers who funded, and supposes that the government paid all funding, [not cited as the case] but the party who funds is not necessarily the party who designs, and it is certainly not true that the government designed the sandwich, which is pre-existent to the U.S. Further, your source, Stacker.com, cites a source, CDC.gov., which designates 1942, not 1945. Come on; really? So, you're 10 for 10 failed rebuttals.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

You're welcome.

I offer you a prime rib sandwich, but you'll take the bozone baloney, thanks. Your choice. Or, blame the universe again. Sorry about the taste quality of your universe. I'll take my prime rib.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

How do I as an outsider tell the difference between your real spiritual experience and an one you imagined?

Haven't I already told you that one? I have. Try it, yourself. Some things only come by personal proof. If you need better evidence, hire a lawyer. You pay one, they'll do anything, and you'll agree with their result because.... you paid for it.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

Spoken like a true Marxist, an obvious critic of capitalism, but who never ran a lemonade stand's worth of effort to know more than that there's an offer of a sandwich for pay. Who designed the sandwich? From whence came the raw materials, and who purchased them? Who developed the marketing plan to offer the sandwich to attract a consumer's appeal? Who produced the sandwich? Who is selling the sandwich? Who is coordinating payment? Who is guaranteeing the sandwich's satisfaction? Who will follow-up on the customer's reaction? Who is paying all those who contributed to the sandwich's design through payroll efforts? If you're bored by your job, create a new job. What, can't think that far ahead? Not my problem, my friend.

Marx thinks all there is to capitalism is selling and buying.

He, and you, entirely miss the point. I am supposed to be surprised?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

How do you know you had one if you didn't experience it? I'm skeptical that anyone has had one that does think they e experienced one though clearly they experienced something. This is a non starter.

I know because it happens outside of physical experience, which you claim can only be physical. If you want to argue for your limitations, be my guest. I will not try to convince you otherwise. What you don't believe is entirely on you. Don't ask me to share it. That you find personal revelation via prayer a tautological exercise is also on you. I do not agree. Don't knock if you haven't tried it. And don't tell me you've tried it. Not unless you follow the exact process defined for trying. Since you doubt, you have already violated that process. Can't get from here to there that way.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

MORE than HALF of POLICE KILLINGS are MISLABELED, NEW STUDY SAYS

-->

@oromagi

Personally, I think every death during police action should be tagged for State and Federal databases. As a citizen, I want to know how many fat guy police chase heart attacks agencies are reporting so I can see how that number compares to other police agencies, other states, other nations, other years , etc.

That claim disavows any responsibility for the fat guys being fat by their own volition and not because of any consequential police action. It is they, the fats, after all, who choose what to stuff in the pie hole, not the police. Further, who suggests that the fat guys run from the police? The police? You want to absolve everyone but the police. Is that proper? Running certainly is not. Of what are they afraid if their innocence can be demonstrated?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

Determinism =/= free will

Random acts =/= free will

I am waiting for evidence. Go.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

Personal revelation via prayer - complete thought process involving no physical attributes of sensory ability. It is pure spiritual connect to the Divine.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Why is Biden channeling Beavis?

-->

@zedvictor4

If you don't like incompetence, don't keep voting for it.

Wise advice for incompetence. Sadly, your opinion of Trump is not nearly so accurate. Witness:

The Trump you hate does not exist.

Every president since Truman has promised to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Every one. Only one did it: Donald Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-embassy-middle-east-peace.html

No Democrat or Republican President dared meet NoKo face-to-face until Trump did. That’s how diplomacy starts. https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-trump-kim-summit-20180611-story.html

No President, Roosevelt through Obama, Republican or Democrat. Passed a tax cut package the size of Trump’s. His corporate tax cut was 43%, largest in a century. That’s historic enough for me. What? You’re not a corporation? That’s on you. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-history/trumps-tax-cut-wont-be-the-biggest-in-u-s-history-idUSKBN1D223O

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, under duress as a Southern Democrat facing loss of the South for his party, but my factoid was Black unemployment. No modern president since Roosevelt, at least, has achieved the unemployment rate reached by Trump. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/donald-trump-said-hes-done-more-african-americans-/
Not to mention that black poverty rate had never seen better numbers. Trump has cut Johnson’s black poverty rate by half. https://infogram.com/untitled-1hxr4znwq7m54yo?live

Carter’s Iran disaster was legendary. You suggest Oba’a made a great deal. He sure did; it ensured Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2025. Read the Deal? No? I did. It’s a disaster, caving to Iran in addition to giving them $1.3B plus $400M in cash. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/
As for the deal itself, it took all of 3 months, from July to October, for Iran to begin violating the deal, multiple times. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran

Clinton declared a substantive deal in 1994 with NoKo, but never met with Rocketman’s father. The deal was violated by NoKo almost immediately, which was meant to deter NoKo’s advances in achieving a nuclear missile delivery system. They have it, and have had it since 2002. https://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578

Oba’a economy was so recovered that he never achieved a greater quarter-to-quarter growth rate above 2.5%. He declared, himself, that 2% GDP was the new norm. https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/07/obama-warns-of-new-normal-for-economy/

His economy was so recovered, he lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history in 2011, costing us billions in new interest payments on the debt, and affected the world market downgrade. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-downgrade/united-states-loses-prized-aaa-credit-rating-from-sp-idUSTRE7746VF20110807

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@sadolite

To be clear, If I kill an unborn human fetus I have not killed anything. It is nothing, you cant kill that which is not alive according to Roe v Wade.

You completely ignore Title 18 USC 1841, which post dates Roe v. Wade by over 30 years, and which specifically makes the violence-caused end of fetal life a legal crime. Therefore, the law does recognize fetal life, and Roe v. Wade did not discount it. The decision discusses the matter of fetal life, but does not draw any conclusion regarding it. Again, you've been misled, as I noted in my #81.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Ramshutu

your brain is made up of neurones....

etc.

You have offered all but the most pertinent activity; the decision process, alone, once the review of all factors considered is complete, and which certainly has physical, measurable attributes, but the measure of those attributes does not include an exact measure of the processes' resulting action, else one would not be able to display a repeated experience-stimulation with a varied pattern of resulting action, which humans demonstrate all the time. And, the fact is, by those measurement techniques, the data collected, alone, does not indicate with any accuracy what decisive action will be rendered. The physical, organic process you outline simple does not include an outline of the decision made; that must wait for observation of the individual's action. We can measure that thinking/decision processes are in play, but not the decision, itself.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@sadolite

It came from the way roe v wade justifies abortion. I am just applying that logic to all "so called life ."

It seems apparent your "assessment" of the Roe v. Wade decision was not based upon a full read of the Court's decision, but, rather, on some media summary. Try reading the decision itself, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Your "so called life" is a complete misnomer, because you assume all "life" referenced in the decision is the fetal life when, in fact, of three separate references to "life" rendered, fetal life is the least mentioned by the numbers in the decision. The "lives" discussion are:

1. Mother's life.

2. Human life, generally

3. Fetal life.

of the 3, Mother's life is the most frequently mentioned. Read the decision.

And, while you conclude that the Court concluded there is no pre-natal life at all, that is a grave misconception of the Court's attitude and decision point. Read the decision.

When you read, I suggest you pay particular attention to paragraphs 42, 52, 82, 84, and 86. The Court is, at best, conflicted, even among those seven who found in favor of plaintiff Roe.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

BIOLOGY + EXPERIENCE = BEHAVIOR

No, your formula is flawed, because it does not account for two variables;

1. Knowledge gained without experience. It happens, and you have not accounted for that variable.

2. We do not always act variably to bad experience in order to have a different experience. We repeat that experience even after learning that those thoughts and actions yield undesired consequences, yet we may repeat, expecting different results.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

See my #15.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

highlight your thesis statement

Which one? I make several. The exemplary statement is that we do a poor job of calendaring, beginning with that we use today; the Gregorian. Pope Gregory, for whom our calendar is named, had painfully poor science advisors who, having the model to apply to a proper calendar; i.e., the Genesis account of creation, which said in Gen 1: 14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

So, instead of following that simple model, the earth and moon and sun, to determine our days and months, and years, we are given:

1. a day is 24 hours' duration,

2. A month is 31, or 28, or 30 days' duration, except that every four years, the month of 28 days is 29,

3 A year is, therefore 365 days duration, except every four years, it is 366 days,

And that is exact science, as determined by the universe? And it is to be depended on to manage our signs and seasons, and days, months, and years???? Forgive my skeptical laugh.

When the model we were given [using our rounded numbers above to achieve preciseness]:

1. A day is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds,

2. A month is 27 days, 7 hours, and 12 seconds,

3. A year is 325 days, 32 hours, 4 seconds.

When the model we were given should have factored as follows:

P1. A day is demonstrated by one complete Earth rotation, and segment that period by equal, exact practical divisions, called 1 hour.

P2. A month is demonstrated by one Moon complete orbit around Earth, and segment that period by equal, exact divisions, called 1 month.

C. A year is demonstrated by one Earth complete orbit around the Sun, and segment that period by equal, exact divisions, called 1 year.

Why did we choose Gregory's advisors as having a better model?

Because the typical human heartbeat is 0.8 seconds' duration, at rest. Well, 60 of those is, uh, sixty of them, almost one minute, so, we'll round it to 60 seconds. This becomes a slippery slope. 60 beats is one minute, 60 minutes is one hour, 24 hours is one day, 31, 28, 31 days in random rotation is one month, 12 months is one year, as noted above. All achieved by neat, convenient, but imprecise rounding. We allow rounding errors that force our inconsistent days, months, years, when the model given at the front of all our existence is... also imprecise, but only because our heartbeat may not be the proper rhythm of the universe. Or, it is imprecise because our expectation is that God created a perfect universe, and, therefore, there is no God, because he didn't. So, why should anything else be perfect, for now? Even determinism allows for imperfection, since we are not all determined for the same factors.

And you think determinism actually makes sense against free will? Occam's razor has been dulled by our arrogance of rounding numbers, and if that's the best science can produce, I'll eat my hat. I don't wear them, so, good luck to the universe forcing that action. If a heartbeat is 0.8 seconds, then call that the unit of one from which time is reckoned, and so on, using the proper model. There's your syllogism; P1, P2, C.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Why is Biden channeling Beavis?

In last Thursday's CNN Town Hall featuring Your Incompetentness, he is shown in social media in split screen with Bevis and his cornholio alter-ego, with arms down to the elbows, then bent forward with fists clenched. What is Biden doing?

1. Actually channeling Beavis.

2. In training to box Trump behind the woodshed.

3. Gripping a painting that isn't by his son, Punter.

4. Driving his peddle-pusher car in the driveway.

5. His orgasmic response to having his hairy legs rubbed by children.

6. Gripping his imagined podium so he does not fall on his face.

7. He was told by the earpiece ever present in his ear, "PoundMeToo."

8. Jill told him backstage before going on, "Just be yourself, Honey."

9. He whispered to the host, Anderson Cooper, "Guess in which hand I'm controlling the Border."

10. He's answering the question given to him, "What plans does the Biden Admin have to relieve the current squeeze due to rising gasoline and grocery prices?" in pantomime. He's applying reverse psychology. Or, maybe he just doesn't understand the question and will, if they don't break for a commercial, throw a tantrum.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

I find most syllogisms offered on tis site to be not. So, why bother.

I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

Tje universe we observe doesn't have room for free will.

Reply:

You are grasping at straws.

27.322 days, Come on, can't be exact?

Since you argue that God cannot create imperfect things, how do you explain at least you? And the rest of us, as well, but then, the rest of us don't really exist in a solipsist universe, so, go ahead and argue for your unique loss of self control. You said it, not me.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

I launched this thread a week ago, before leaving for a vacation, during which I had no internet service. That was great!

Y'all have bickered, as usual.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@sadolite

A species is nothing until it is born. It is not life.

Where did that come from? Pre-school biology?

A pre-natal is nothing? Funny thing, it meets every description of biological life. But, keep thinking limited potential. Guess what it yields?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

I've been away in back, high country in the Rockies for a week; me and nature, where, in the cold nights, I spent hours in thinking, watching the splendor overhead you just cannot see in any city of modern convenience. Part of that splendor was a fully waxing moon. It got me thinking about the phenomenon of the blue moon.

Those who argue for our lack of free will, that our own thoughts and actions are pre-determined by the universe have not met this argument. There are some, who, in an effort to hang onto the belief that there is a God directing the affairs of the universe, call that determinism as God’s purview. But these same divine apologists cannot define that God, nor how he acts, other than that he is "omnipotent." But that claim is also fraught with an interrupt, because they will also claim that God cannot create imperfect things, or he would not be omnipotent. That is an obvious oxymoron, because we are far from perfect. Then, some of these apologists conclude, there is no God. It is the only answer left, having already accepted a perfectly operating universe, having created itself, without necessity of God.

All because of omnipotence. Therefore, determinism. Then, in that argument, determinism is, itself, perfect.

Nope. My evidence: the phenomenon of the blue moon:

A blue moon is the event of an extra, fourth full moon in any given three-month quarter. Some erroneously infer that this means there is a regular occasion of blue moons. No, they occur irregularly, once ever 2+ years, and that is primarily because of how man reckons time, which is also viewed generally as perfect, but is not. The Gregorian Calendar, by which we all reckon time today, is randomly irregular with both 30- and 31-day months, plus a month, February, of only 28 days in three of every four years. In the fourth year, 29. Random enough for you, when, as I argued in a debate y’all [one of y’all, in fact], rendered against me, the universe is, itself random, and not perfect, at least, not be how we reckon time's passing, whether you're talking A-theory, B-theory, or X,Y,Z-theory.

Did I not argue that Genesis describes how our sun, moon, and local stars are for our use in reckoning seasons and years? The moon’s orbit around our planet is a regular 27.322-day period, and Earth's orbit of 365.256 days around the sun. But we did not reckon our calendar that way, did we? No.We like rounding, but time is not properly reckoned by rounding.

So why did the universe force our reckoning against it’s own movements to invent an elaborately random calendar, when the simplicity of what is going on out there is evident? We are the imperfection, and it is the universe's fault?

Because it was our free will to do so, without a hint of objection from the universe, of which we are allegedly part and parcel, if God did not create us. He created us to figure these things out, using our free agency to do so. So, we choose to be inexact. Someday, we shall have to account for our stewardship of estimations when we could consider at least significant decimals. Live with it. We don't know our own potential to be gods, one day, so, I don't doubt y'all are convinced you have no say in your lives. Lazy is what that is.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Contrary to very popular belief, on both sides, the 1973 Roe v. WadeSupreme Court decision will not be overturned in a single court case, even with a clear conservative majority on the Court as it has at present. Personally, I am skeptical of politics on the Court. The evidence of this attitude is apparent when one considers that, in spite of the apparent “political” leaning of the Court, it arrives at unanimous decisions a full 59% of the time over its history since 1789, when established. No other split decision of the Court has this plurality.

Further, note that when Roewas decided, the 7-2 split decision included four Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for partisanship on the Court. It is a popular, but unwarranted myth.

Roeis a much more complicated decision to overturn. Of nearly 1,900 cases taken by the Court in its history, there have been but 200+ decisions later overturned. There are too many variables, all of which would require a perfect storm of a single case to come before the Court in order for this generation’s Court to overturn Roe.That is not very likely to happen.

I perceive three major points, all three of which must be completely revised in current law, not just Roe,which did not establish any law; rather, it merely agreed with several state laws, while requiring other states to amend their law on the subject.
Those three points are:

1.     The fetus is a human being and a person.
2.     The fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues share unique DNA separate and distinct from the mother.
3.     Privacy of a woman’s body does not extend to the fetus as described by the privacy discussion in the Roedecision.

Fetus is human: Once upon a time, even as late as the Roedecision, this was little more than assumption. And, while some still argue the point that a fetus is not human until birth, thus defining, they think, what it is not,they do not alternatively define by explanation what it is.
However, science has stepped in to demonstrate that by every definition of “human,” except one, the fetus exhibits every single characteristic of humanity; by DNA, by form/fit/function, and by biologic systems.

Currently, by one statute, however, a “person,” by definition, does not necessarily accept a pre-natal condition, although 1 US Code §8 does come very close to it. This will be the easiest, and likely the first point to be altered, and it may not occur in a Roe-related case.
The sub-set question becomes, if the fetus is human, does it share equal personhood rights even if unborn? Here, again, 1 US Code §8 comes up to, but does not cross that threshold.

However, there is another statute, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which amended 18 US Code §1841 to recognize that any violence committed on a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of the fetus would carry a dual charge of murder, which is, exclusively, the malicious cause of death with aforethought to a human being, a person. Therefore, this statute recognizes the personhood of the unborn fetus.

Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.This point, as well, was nebulous until the human genome was completely mapped by the close of the twentieth century, twenty-plus years following the Roedecision. By that time, DNA identification was becoming commonplace, and it was demonstrated by empiric evidence that fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues shared common DNA that was separate and distinct from the mother.
It was secondarily determined that not even blood was shared between mother and fetus, but that, rather, in the cellular attachment of the placenta to the inner uterine wall, there is a blood barrier similar to that in the lungs such that nutrients pass through the barrier, but blood does not. In the lungs, the barrier allows exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide without internal loss of blood.

The separation feature is critical to a reversal of the Roedecision, which stipulates that a mother/fetal bond is physiologically and genetically cohesive and identical.

To tip that scale, the third point will require discussion:

Privacy of a woman’s body. The privacy issue is nebulous, at best, even though the Roedecision cites amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 14 as descriptive of individual privacy even though only one, the 14th, contains any description of “privacy” at all, and in that context, the amendment verbiage relates only to one’s personal protection against unwarranted government search and seizure. One might argue that since, in many cases, the government is funding the abortion procedure, at least in some cases, that is exactly what abortion is. The other cited amendments do not even contain the words, “privacy,” or “private,” but, nor does the 14A. The discussion of the application of “privacy” is interpretive, only.

But, even physiologically, it is a leap from current demand of understanding the science to consider that the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body. Once truly understood by the simplicity of the true science, it becomes much clearer that the Roedecision got it wrong.

As noted above, fetal… tissue DNA does not match the mother’s DNA. On that basis, alone, the fetal… tissue is not part of the woman’s body. Neither is food, one might argue. Organic food does not share her DNA, either, but it clearly becomes part of the woman’s body. More correctly, it is broken down digestively to its simple components, and is then either absorbed by her body, or evacuated, or, in the case of pregnancy, shared with the fetus until it comes to full-term.
It becomes apparent that the separation of mother and fetal tissue is elegant. It is intended that food be absorbed by the body as its first objective. Not so with fetal… tissue. The fetal objective is to become a separate, distinct, and wholly self-driven individual [or more in the case of multiple simultaneous births]. It is carried in the woman’s body, surrounded by it, much like a ping-pong ball is held in the closed fist, but, by birth, the fetal… tissue, all of it, is expelled from the mother’s body.

This point will likely be the last to change its paradigm, but it is certain to do so when the science, and the apparently conflicting legal statutes, are more generally understood and accepted as fact. The difficulty is that, during the nine months of gestation, the fetal… tissue certainly seems like part and parcel of the woman’s body. The two previous points are going to have to change their paradigms before this third point is ever modified. Even then, to surrender a privacy that has been a part of society by Court precedent for two generations, and certainly interpreted as such for far longer, is a difficult legal demand, even for a scientifically-absorbed Supreme Court.

A couple of years ago, present and former Justices of the Court rendered commentary on the Roe v. Wade decision, including then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who determined that the Roedecision certainly warranted a re-examination by the Court, at least, and potential overturning for a variety of reasons, including some of the points reviewed here.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

TRUMP KEEPS DENYING GOLDEN SHOWERS UNPROMPTED- FORCING AMERICANS to AGAIN WONDER WHY

-->

@oromagi

Forcing? Just can't help it? I feel no pressure whatsoever to wonder anything but that Joe Biden continues to flounder. On second thought, there's no wonder to it at all. He's a joke without a punch line.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Who won in 2020?

Ultimately, Joe Biden loses. He is presenting mounting evidence daily that he is patently incompetent to be the President. He3 has yet to have a single accomplishment worthy of the office, and his poll numbers, even among Democrats who voted for him are tanking badly, so badly, even Jimmy Carter, at his age, is more cognizant of the fact than is Joe, himself, who is in a constant state of lalaland. Currently, he has held more pressers after which he has walked away when finished airing out his mind, such as it is, than stay to answer questions

The party is in a real fix because the 25th is a looming necessity, but they know Kammie would be an unmitigated disaster, potentially the greatest risk to this democracy ever encountered. We're almost there now, under Biden.

Finally, if all that is not convincing, remember that Biden, himself, in one of the first gaffes ever presented by the candidate, said that he would "beat Joe Biden." i take him at his word: he's a loser.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

And, now, a word from our President...

-->

@3RU7AL

And when a family member is part of the State, the danger is on your home. Member against member; it happens more than you'd like to admit.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

that verse may well indicate that people who add to or take away from the bible have certain consequences for them,

No. That verse applied only to John's Revelation; that book alone. You still say it refers to the Bible, which did not exist in the era Revelation was written, and not for several hundred added years. Come on, you know this stuff, just don't want to admit it.

The NT was completed by AD 70.

Not at all. As a complete tome, all 27 books, was not assembled and canonized until the ninth decade of the fourth century, https://religionfacts.com/canonization-new-testament

not 70 AD.

And John probably composed Revelation in the last decade of the first century https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

-->

@Ramshutu

I just pointed out how your premise was mostly asserted nonsense - which it is.

Yeah, you just said so, with no data to present refuting that brain chemistry is individually unique, other than declaring it reductio ad absurdum. I can toss out accusations, too, but they have zero value. Come back with some academia behind you. Good luck. "In the private sector, they expect results." Best line in a movie, ever, and so very true.

I'm not getting into an argument that your science can beat up my science. That's reductio ad puerile.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Communism and Totalitarianism.

-->

@RationalMadman

@BigPimpDaddy

...you'd of course argue that this is due to the dictionaries needing to abide by definitions provided post cold-war.

Who needs A dictionary? A read of the Communist Manifesto is clear enough what its intentions are and how it defines its vocabulary.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Communism and Totalitarianism.

-->

@cristo71

communism is community control of the means of production

No, that is socialism, allegedly. It doesn't help when Democrats, no calling themselves Social Democrats, would like you to think it is community control, but a read of the AOC official description of the Green New Deal, https://www.gp.org/gnd_full will tell you that the government would establish a federal commission to conduct "budget participation," meaning government oversignt of privtre industry budgeting. That's otherwise called government control, which is:

Communism is government control of the means of production.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Communism and Totalitarianism.

-->

@secularmerlin

free of the cult of work and the exploitation of corporate interests.

Free of the cult of work? As if work is unjustly meted out? You're kidding, right? Work is not a cult; it is a requirement of personal responsibility. You were not born to be coddled to, entitled, or otherwise dismiss personal responsibility. THAT is exploitation of the rest of us, who find personal satisfaction, or at least the income personally earned to care for ourselves and our families.

Don't you mean exploitation BY corporate interests? That is your typical mantra. You're at war with capitalism. If you have ever lived under communism, or totalitarianism, you would know that it is slavery of thought and action. Your individual worth just isn't. Period.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

-->

@Ramshutu

How can free will exist if you can never chose a least preferable option?

Answer is demonstrated in my #36. "Never" is incorrect.

And you ignore that my #38 rebuts the notion of the universe affecting brain chemistry since every human has unique chemistry. How does a lifeless, indifferent universe calculate the variations and properly drive a human action, which is the reason choice is not an illusion.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

-->

@Ramshutu

choosing....calculating

You're merely playing semantics. And you have completely ignored my #38 argument, substantiated by citation, that brain anatomy, thus chemistry, varies by individual, and is unique to each individual. The universe, a non-living collection of matter and energy, cannot distinguish individual brain anatomy to determine course of action for each. Therefore, it is more sensible, in spite of "science," which is demonstrated to be variable, itself, that we each choose to either have choices made for us by others, or make those choices ourselves. Only the former let the stream carry them where it will.

The process of making personal choices by free will:

1. Do the process already, avoid delay

2. Remove ego and emotion; they delay and deter

3. Obtain expert opinion; you may not consider all options on your own

4. Collect valid datae; invalid data will only confuse and delay

5. Understand risk, cost, benefit

6. Choose

As we will each approach these steps in individual fashion, being separate distinct individuals competing in a vast, unconscious, and ambivalent universe, some will miss steps, others will come to invalid conclusions, and still others will achieve choices by doing the complete process with justification on their side. There's a simple, and true axim: There are three kinds of people: make things happen, watch what happens, wonder what happened. We are one or the other by choice, even if we let that choice be made by others for us, and the universe says naught; it is of no consequence in the process of choice, which is why it is not in the proper choice process.

As mentioned, we may abdicate the choice to others, which I suppose could be argued to be a choice to let the universe decide, but that's a wonder-what-happened kind of person, and even some of the watch-what-happens people. A make-things-happen person does not give credence to surrender of choice, i.e., free will.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

Both 1 & 2 were not new to Matthew:

1. "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Deut. 6: 4,5

2. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Levit 19: 18

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

-->

@secularmerlin

Your actions are determined by your preferences (not your choice)

Preference: "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.

'he chose a clock in preference to a watch'"

Care to explain why the definition disagrees with your opinion?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

I have no idea to what your #38 refers. A bunch of OT citations. And?

Do they have some relevance to anything?

Want to explain yourself?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Some here say the universe messes with my brain chemistry

-->

@secularmerlin

Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.

Item #3, my friend. I know not from whence you get "non-determinism."

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

And, now, a word from our President...

-->

@Greyparrot

Agreed, he did say, after all [he really did] "I will beat Joe Biden." The 't' is a definitive plosive heard and seen in the vocal track. The media, and some here have said otherwise, in grand apology for Biden, but I've heard and seen it on my professional sound studio equipment. The 't' is there, worlds without end.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

But, to play your game, I'll give it you in two simple verses, since on their effect "hang the law and the prophets."

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Matt 22: 37, 39

If we truly kept these two commandments, every word of them, we are already keeping the rest. If we're only keeping one, we're breaking both; the same effect as keeping none.

Tell me what other commandment, parable, or psalm is not accomplished by the keeping of these two, alone?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in: