Total posts: 816
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't know if off-track thinking is indicative of brain size, but the trend is not is not favorable. Perhaps condom sizes? I never use them, not because I'm careless, but because I don't need a device with only 80% effectiveness since I value fidelity more than notches on my holster. Which, of course, means I am also 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Not a bad record, all in all, and whether that is indicative of brain size, I have no clue.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
non-causality is not a thing. Please stop pretending it’s a thing.
Please stop insisting. Your pretend and my pretend simply disagree. Is that a problem for you, because I can live with it, since I also know you do not know everything. Nor do I. And that is, literally, all I need to say about. As for the rest of your response, TLDR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't if if it's the right people, but people who remain aware of current events, and how they develop, remain free by their own endeavors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I have no way to measure, but, venturing a guess, probably not.
What I do have, and even this does not even measure in the top 100,000, maybe not even in the top ten million of all time [your qualifier], is the means to have a more proper interpretation. This, I have already explained. I ask the source.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
“Non-causality” isn’t a thing. In science or anything else.
The best example for non-causality I can think of in this instance is the non-causality that the universe was geocentric, which science determined thousands of years ago, and maintained until the 1860s. There simply was no cause for such "science," yet science declared it so, merely by observation; another concept you're having difficulty accepting having limitations. Science is not the holy grail. Accept it. It flounders in the darkness just like the rest of us.
But, science says, we don't have to worry about it too much longer because, by the Climate Change clock, we're all toast in 9 years. Get you butter ready. I have, as it happens, 2 years' worth in storage, but it ain't going to do anything for me in 9 years but flavor my food. Having that food is my choice. The universe would have me consume only, and not prepare for anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
By their own decisions to not cover some stories, and to invent stories. That's not freedom; that's an agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Overproduction of all food stuffs
As I said, the problem isn't overproduction, just as we do not have an overpopulation problem, either. We have a distribution problem, and, that, likely, caused by greed.
That there are predatory practices in business is no surprise; the greed thing. But do you have to succumb to it? Again, education, and acting on the education, is the pathway out of all of your bitching, regardless on what subject. Must you be a victim because that is what you are told you should be? Stop. YOU decide to be a victim. YOU also decide to not be a victim. Decide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes to all. Very happy for Shatner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your conditioned political bias and intolerance dictates that:Democrat always bad, even though they might actually sometimes get things right.Republican always good, even though they might actually sometimes get things wrong.
You must be thinking of someone else because that is not my attitude about either party. I am not a registered member of either party. There are Ds who piss me off; there are Rs who piss me off.
No, if Trump asked me to goose anything, I would not do it. I wish he were kinder, but he's definitively an eye-for-eye guy, and, typically, hits harder than hit. The way he's been hit, however, from all sides, frankly, I cannot blame him. We need a decisive executive in the Oval, and that was Trump. Biden is a joke by comparison. A bad joke. I can laugh at him only because he's not qualified for dogcatcher. The stupidity is all over his face. He likes children rubbing his hairy legs? Really? He admits that? Sorry, no sale, eve if he could do something positive, but, not yet. Probably not ever. Just not right for the part. That's a thousand times worse than a shirtless Putin, whose body is not quite a paragon of animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That is when Revelation was "sealed up". And that is when the NT was completed.
And that, as you say, is incorrect. Was there a New Testament when John completed Revelation? No, not yet. I know the verse declaring that no one should alter that book. That book was Revelation, not the entire Bible, which was yet centuries into the future. Come on , you know this. So you say God no longer reveals to prophets. Which God? God the Father? That appears to be your interpretation, by your instance on Hebrews. So, God, the Son, Jesus Christ. And he said to his disciples that after his departure, he would send the Holy Ghost, the God, Holy Spirit, to speak to man. I, ay least, acknowledge prophets beyond the NT. I acknowledge prophets, today, and whether the inspiration to them, and to myself, frankly, for affairs that concern me, personally, bot not for the world at large because I do not have that responsibility, is by God the Father, Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, it is revelation, and it matters not, according to Jesus, who is the inspiriator; it is all as if from the mouth of God, the Father.
And thus, the Book of Mormon. Another testament of Jesus Christ. Another scripture. If you read it, cover to cover, and applied the challenge therein to find the truth of it, you would know. There's more. Gods do not finish speaking to man. Never have, never will.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s completely unclear what you’re objection even is.
Of course it's unclear. To you. And Secular, who cannot think outside the box of determinism. At least Secular admits a presence of non-causality which you completely ignore. You speak to "physical objects, atoms, neurons, etc." If you mean by that, the quantum particles, waves, fields, and forces, on which laws such as gravity appear to have no control, right there is your problem with determinism, because that theory suggests that determinism isn't the all-encompassing driver of the universe, or of man. Free will exists as that variance you cannot identify0, yet will fight to the teeth that it does not exist. That's on you.
You object to my description of observation, the essential tool of science, and that observation can, itself, alter that which is observed, or present different interpretations of what is observed. That is fact whether you agree with it, or not. It is the fac tor that can, without taking urgent care to control how things are observed. The fact that the level of accuracy of observation changes, scientist to scientist, or anybody else for that matter, ought to tell you that if determinism were at play, we'd all act better than we do since the control, by determinism's necessity, would be consistent.
You argue that outside influences - drugs, for example - can alter our response to the world and the universe. Yes, they can, I agree. But that does not alter the fact that it can also inhibit our free will to not have thoughts or actions that would disagree with our decisions made when not so impaired by external influences. You act as if the idea of taking ketamine is not mine to refuse. I choose to keep such substances from my body, and always have. of course, you could force my actions, but not my decisions. Yes, you can overwhelm my free will, but that's you, forcing the action, not me. If you do it at the poi t of a gun, without any physical contact with me, you've merely presented a condition under which I must decide whether to bow to your forced action, or, at the risk of my life, maintain my own will, freely made in spite of consequences. If determinism were truly the force at work here, I should choose to alter my course, let my survival nature kick in, and do as you insist. obviously, people are in situations wherein they dismiss personal survival for the sake of others. Determinism would insist that does not occur, but it does, and the evidence of it is immediately apparent.
You argue that all physical objects bow to physical laws. Fine. Is the mind a physical object? Not by any observation that has produced evidence to that conclusion. Yet, the mind exists for each individual, and even other animals. And, there are observations, whether you accept them, or not, such as Jesus walking on water, he, a physical being, violatng gravity, one of those laws. But is he breaking a law of physics, or merely acting under a greater law where gravity has limitations, such as it has with particles, waves, fields, and forces.
You argue that particles, waves, fields, and forces act predictably, yet, we encounter conditions such as described above, and earlier, where these elements of universe do not obey the law of gravity, and likely other laws, as well. Your determinism does not explain these variables.
What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality?
As noted previously, and above, non-causality is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.
It seems my argument of free will has fewer limitations, and inconsistencies, than determinism.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
All actions/events are either caused (determinism)Or uncaused (indistinguishable from random)
As I said to Ramshutu:
Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
Ramshutu made no argument against the final clause, i.e., "...non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options." I am merely saying what science calls "non-causality" is the random factor in the universe, available to some species having higher intelligence, like man, and, as I've demonstrated, even a dog, but others, as well, is free will, which can either be predicted, but only based upon consistency past action, or unpredictable, such as making a choice that appears completely at random. Neither of you can give a name to that randomness other than calling it random.ut that descrtiption is not always applicable, and the variation is free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hebrews 1:1-3 specifically says God spoke in various ways in the past but now - speaks through Jesus.
And Jesus says that whether it is by his mouth, or by the prophets, it is the same. Since Jesus also said the he and the Father are one [not one body, but separate personages who are completely united in thought and deed], I think that means that it does not matter whether Father or Jesus speak. It is the same.
Mormons don't generally understand the bible very much. So I can understand your problem here
I don't accept that moniker, by the way. Beside the point. That's an awfully wide brush you paint with, my friend. I could just as easily say the same of just about any group, but I know that would be unfair to individuals who may very well understand it implicitly. I do in 4 languages. And I've lost count of then number of times having read it in its entirety. Yeah, yeah, one can say mere reading does not necessarily imply comprehension, but, again, how do you know?
And the bible is written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
And translated and transliterated numerous times by people who may not have been so inspired. Requires personal study, pondering, and prayer. Knowledge of at least one of the alleged original languages doesn't hurt.
To say baptism means submersion is not what the bible says.
βαπτίζω - Greek, meaning immersion [in water]. I'll let you look up immersion.
I'll thank you to stop your ridicule. I will not repeat you childish language. You have no idea of that of which you jest. Until you do, just shut it. Please. What I wear is my business, my devotion, and my choice. Just as I respect others' prayer shawls, yamakas, albs, cinctures, clerical collars, etc. Just stop and keep it civil, please. Your infantile criticism says much of a lack of honest Christianity. Be a saint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Careful, that's just another form of censorship.
No one is talking to you.
That is either self-centered opinion of one's self, or failure to acknowledge that just on this string, several people are talking to me.
Not that I require anyone to say a bloody thing in order to join the forum discussion, and to direct my commentary to whoever I choose. I hear this is a body of free expression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
in a land fill producing methane which contributes to the ongoing ecological disaster.
Methane, oh boo-hoo. Tell you what: more methane is produced by rice paddies, and all other wetlands, cultivated and natural, than was ever or will ever be produced by cows. Eat your rice, but leave my steak alone. Every stinking living thing produces methane. It's nature, bud, even from your butt. Your mouth, too, at times.
evict them from their studio apartment
Eviction, oh, boo-hoo. Pay your rent on time; be left alone. Better, earn more than min wage, buy your own house, but know that you still must pay the mortgage on time. Didn't you learn that when the bubble burst in 2008 because too many people took out home loans they could never afford? And many ofd them trashed their homes. Nice.
city planning that does not shackle people to their cars
Shackled to cars, oh, boo-hoo. Get a bicycle. Hop on a bus/trolley/train. Walk if you must. What did 19th century people do? Tired of bitching yet? Nope.
ambition doesn't have to be tied up in money.
Money? Oh, boo-hoo. Make enough for your need, and invest the rest. Do that, you tend to avoid all your bitching.
People are hurt by overproduction and withholding of products necessary to life
Overproduction. oh, boo-hoo. Seems we are in a mode wherein overproduction is not the problem; it's delivery. The supply chain. That's what happens when your President decides to pat people for not working. You don't have a production problem; you have a distribution problem, and it started at the Oval. All he's distributing is horseshit.
When people in the 19th didn't have goods necessary for life, oh, what did they do? They learned how to make stuff, grow stuff, repair stuff themselves. In other words, they educated themselves; the solution to virtually every bitch you've offered. Or, continue to be entitled, which, you observe, doesn't work so well when the chips are down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
1. You have the right to be offended [it's the unwritten segment of the 1A].
2. Censure is not the right response. Atheists have the right to offend, also per the 1A. So do theists; maybe atheists are offended, too?
3. Rinse and repeat.
4. The 1A is, perhaps, the single best string ever written because it demands that speakers be allowed to be heard, even if they prefer silence, and also demands that listeners listen and agree or disagree, and offer their response with the expectation that they, too, are allowed to be heard, and without violating the right of their opposite's opinion. it is the most difficult facet of democracy to accomplish successfully, and peacefully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I hope I scared the shit out of you.
Had to read that grade school essay from Maher just to come to that infantile conclusion? Maher is senile; declined to fourth grade. Scared? Laughing my ass off.
Hillaryous Balloon Girl spins better stories than that.
Created:
Posted in:
a free and fair press,
Do you know how long it has been since our press has been free and fair? How about from the get-go? You realize, of courser, that the only private industry mentioned by the Constitution is the press. You may have been taught that the press is free and fair [I was, too], but the press does not merely report news. In fact, it does little of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It would hurt other people who also need food, shelter, public works and produced goods.
Are people hurt because some must eat beans, while another has prime rib? That one rents a studio apartment, while another owns 30-room house on acreage? That one has a paved private road while another has an unimproved road? That one has limo while another a bicycle? Are the latter hurt because the lack the ambition to achieve that which the former have accomplished?
You ignore that ambition gets in the way of "sharing", even if that ambition leaves room for a former of each of the conditions noted above to be charitable to the latter of each condition, but does not equalize the commodities.
No one is "hurt," whatever you mean by that, but there is definitively a lack of equity. What is the justification for equity if the latter folks are not as ambitious, and do not plan and execute as the former folks? Is ambition, itself, an evil?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would like you, of your own free will,
One can ignore the rest, because you're already attempting to mess with my free will. Doesn't matter what the action is; you are attempting to be its instigator, and assume I will comply. I don't.
Yes, I can choose to eat corn flakes in milk, even though I don't like it. So where is determinism in that? The prediction might be that I will defy my dislike as probable. But, that's the reason why predictability, itself, stops at 95% accuracy; it cannot account for the random choice to eat the flakes, but must, anyway, or the entire "science" of probability goes out the window, i.e., ceases to be 'science.'
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Sure, all of those external effects can affect brain chemistry and function. I'm even willing to admit that a poor diet, even without the surgery, psychedelics, etc., can affect brain function, but all of that is a deviation from "normal" brain function by an accepted behavior of the "normal" person.
One of the problems with determinism is that the function/behavior of the universe is still as assessed by an observer, and we already know the dangers of that consequence: observation, itself, causes variation, either by affecting the behavior of that observed, or by interpretive variation in what is observed. Either way, it introduces a degree of randomness that messes with the accuracy of predictability. And that is supposed to yield either rational or irrational choices by an individual? No. To me, that randomness of potential variation, even by the properties of the universe that are, but only by degree, predictable; particles, waves, fields, and forces, make the notion of their activity being the source of our human choices a bit too random, given the clarity by which people can reason by themselves and with others.
Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Oh, and Havoc thinks his cornflake post is on the level with works of TS Elliot. ;-)
Another reading comprehension issue. Look, you asked,
Is this some treatise about the myth of freewill?
In other words you're asking about the meaning of my post #1. My reply does not equate my refusal to eat corn flakes with TS Eliot. It's not a specifically literary issue; it's philosophy, isn't it? I'm saying my reply to you is the same as Eliot to the journalist: Don't ask stupid questions. Of course its about the superiority of free will, because free will doesn't get wrapped around the axle about corn flakes, as apparently the universe does, at least by most definitions of determinism that I've seen. But, if you want to let the universe mess with your head, by all means, let it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I want to see him being held to account for his actions. I think you should ask yourself why you don't.
Lost count of how many times I've repeated this:
I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not,
I'm willing to let the process play out, if it is going to at all with indictments. The difference between us, as I have also repeated to you specifically, is that you have clearly indicted, tried, and convicted Trump already, and you wonder why he is not in jail, already. You say he is guilty now. You've said it multiple times. Do you understand what must occur before that declaration holds water? I've referred you to the Constitution a number of times. That you refuse to investigate what it says [I've even cited it for you] is entirely on you. My recommendation: stop the accusations and exercise patience. Either he is innocent - which, as of now, constitutionally, he is, or he will be found guilty, but only if he is indicted. You have naught to do with any of that process. In the meantime, you're but sounding brass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why don't you come back when you're certain? And what is your interest in harming any facet of society? Land ownership is a fact of life, particularly now. But, if your lalaland says sovereignty and land ownership is not a fact of life, and you can squat wherever you need to pee, that's your choice. Or do you, as usual, blame the universe?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
TS Eliot was once asked by a journalist immediately after the first night of a play production Eliot had written: "What does it mean?".
Eliot replied, "It means what it says."
That you interpret poorly is entirely on you and I have no inclination to correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If they indict Trump then it’s a corrupt witch hunt fueled by the fake news media.If they don’t indict Trump it’s proof that Trump is innocent.
You don't know my mind at all. That's not how I think at all. You assume I'm a typical Trumpie. Nope. I appreciate what his policies did for me, personally. I appreciate his media handling. Had them eating our of his spoon because he understands media better than any president ever. Conversely, they didn't get him, at all.
If he is indicted, they better have more and better evidence than the House ever presented, because both impeachments were sacks of rotten potatoes that had no more legal standing than a drunk hanging on a lamppost, and the Senate, in both cases, served their roles with sober dispatch. Regardless there will be, if indicted, trials, and they will be what the will be. If he's guilty, it will be declared then. If innocent, that will be declared, What you think about either conclusion is of no interest to me whatsoever. What I think will not bve aired in the meantime because it serves no purpose.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Boy, did I blow that one, and just saw it. Y meant to say we OWE him big time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Oh, so now murder is okay? What makes the death penalty immoral? I's not murder. It's not malice, it's punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Clueless? I'm clueless for asking valid questions that absolutely no one has answered ever since Hilarious Balloon Girl said Trump was a threat. She never explained why, either. If he was a threat, where are the indictments against him? Want to tackle that one, genius? Where are any if the the indictments for alleged crimes Trump has committed? Y'all own the DOJ, now. Why is everybody so shy? Hell, I was told by the media that Garland is a firebrand. He's a wet noodle. Cold.
maybe you don't have a case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Double_R
The conversation you are having is being held in the court of public opinion
Nope. The reality is, there are no current indictments against Donald Trump for the issues Secular raises, and he thinks that should not matter, that he is guilty anyway. Nope, as well, since guilt is only established upon conviction [in court, not in public opinion] Appears you're off-base, too. Public opinion and fact may not be the same thing.
exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations,
Not a crime unless it is demonstrated to be so, by evidence presented in court. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? You might consult the 4A and 6A. Enlightening. You, too, Sec.
He’s a former president of the United States who is still running around the country claiming he really won the 2020 election.
Show me the statute prohibiting that a private citizen do that. Tell me how that violates the 1A. There's your answer regarding how 'that alone' is isn't a threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
to their detriment even into the present day.
That happens when you think you have no cause to own the land and declare sovereignty. oops. You know, of course, relative to America, that Native Americans first using that term were not "indigenous." They didn't start using that term until the 1960s. It was second-generation Irish immigrants, about 500 years ago [first decades of the 17th century], who coined the term to describe themselves. And, just so you know, "America" is not an indigenous term; it's European. History is wonderful when it is really understood for what it is. Kind of like the Constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As I said, it's predictive. But, even if it expresses full-blown, and even defeats democracy in the short term, I know that will be short-lived, and then they'll wish they had not been born. That's good enough for me.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It means we own him, big time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
the Brit Empire whilst it lasted, was a pretty amazing achievement.
I'll acknowledge that all day long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But, as you know, we're not in Orwell's world. Skeptical is, but that's on him. That was a fiction. Predictive, yes, but that's it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Damn! You don't read for comprehension much do you? what about "I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not, but you have, even without an indictment, let alone a trial" do you fail to understand. I have not and do not and will not advocate for Trump's guilt or innocence. Get it? Finally? You're the one insisting he is guilty, but there is no indictment, let alone a trial. Wear it, you own it.
You mean besides trying to influence the results of an election with the influence provided by his office, trying to undermine confidence in our democratic process, or trying to overturn the results of an election with demonstrably false claims?
NONE of that exists in any indictment. Do you get that? Your condition is much more than skeptical. Just skeptical would understand, You're in lalalland assuming he should already be in jail. just stop it. I get it. You hate him. And?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Uh, not to put a point on it, but wasn't it the British who claimed the sun never set on their empire? Stand down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
it also does not exonerate him."
That, and your other quotes all speak to Mueller's own impasse because he didn't think he could indict, and had to make those excuses. His error. It would have been much easier to indict, and let the chips fall as they will.
Trump is a threat to democracy
I've heard that so many times, yet it is never justified. WHY is he a threat? HOW is he a threat? WHEN was he a threat? Be specific.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I agree. It's just that the word carries a negative connotation.
Created:
...and that is why I don't eat corn flakes.
Really?
And this is because this is the best explanation for my refusal of corn flakes?
Could it be that I simply determined that milk makes them excessively soggy? Some like that; I do not.
Oh, the fact that I do not is also the universe messing with my brain chemistry? Why mine and not yours?
Well, it's obvious, isn't it? I've pissed off the universe. Little old me. As if I was any threat to it. Over corn flakes.
Uh-huh. Sure. That and a dime...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I've not interpreted whether Trump is guilty, or not, but you have, even without an indictment, let alone a trial.
And, obviously, my lecture on the Constitution has hit home because apparently, you were unaware Mueller could have indicted Trump, but did not, and you excuse that as a matter of Trump still being obviously guilty. The law, including the Constitution, has things to say about that attitude, as well, so, apparently you're in need of lectures. Being skeptical is one thing, Being ignorant is quite another.
Trump's guilt, or innocence, has yet to be determined, if it ever will be, so why insist there is already conclusive evidence to the theory [and that
is all it is, at present]. Thus, I ignore the rest of your diatribe, other than Mueller's own stated conclusions [from the Mueller Report]:
"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Mueller Report, "Executive Summary to Vol 1," pg. 9
"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The laws of physics don't just change at random, as you seem to suggest I've suggested. No. They change when it is found that what was found to be immutable is mutable. Law changes over time with new discovery, even if just because we recognize we have not yet captured all conditions possible that affect how physics functions, which is why we discovered that the universe is not geocentric, isn't it? It's also how we've discovered that the law of gravity is not universal; it, too, is dependent on conditions, such as being in a vacuum, or that Jesus, and Peter for a brief moment, could walk on water. They changed conditions we do not yet even understand. I'll surprise you by saying that even God is bound by laws. And that he is not the total cause of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"THE LAWS OF PHYSICS"
as if that is the holy grail of ultimate knowledge. Bullshyte, and science will be first to admit it. The "laws" of physics are in constant flux; they're not a just a constant. Just two hundred years ago, [the age of climate science, at best, by the way - so goes Green New Deal] the laws of physics said Earth was central to the universe. All the evidence pointed to that. Two hundred years. A blink.
So don't give me your "laws" of physics. They're as changeable as probability, and you admitted that probability is/is not in play. Make up your mind.
But free will has been what it is for thousands of years.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't believe this is anyone's goal.
Just the Democrats.
Many people do not have the luxury of turning down full time minimum wage work last they suffer homelessness, destitution and starvation.
How many would benefit from education, and choose to deny themselves of that advantage?
you don't know what it is like to struggle with food security and financial stability.
You're right. My father didn't encourage me to be entitled. He taught me ambition, planning, and execution. It's not rocket science. It's not black magic. It's common sense. It works. Anybody can do it. Why don't they? Because they whine.
People ought to he fed and housed.
People ought to feed and house themselves. We've abdicated personal responsibility for entitlement. Don't you get it? That's communism. Forget socialism, that's just communism lite. And it seeks your destruction as a thinking individual. It wants you poor, and dumb, and needy. Personal responsibility drives ambition, that drives planning, and that drives execution, and defeats communism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Trump was undeniably guilty of these offenses
Impeachment's only conviction is removal from office. It is a political act, not a legal one. Let's not confuse matters. If he is guilty of illegal action, where are the indictments?
Furthermore, he said it was not his place to prosecute a sitting president.
Mueller is so full of shyte there, it's amazing he still has a license to practice. Look, the idea of not indicting a sitting president is not law; it's DOJ policy established by John Mitchell [Nixon's AG] who established that policy specifically to protect Nixon. The idea has held, but it is just policy. Mueller could have indicted. He did not. Therefore, the thinking that prosecution was not possible is cowardly, suggesting he did not have the evidence claimed to have.
A careful read of Article I, section 3, clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." There it is, in bold. Regardless of all other action in a trial of impeachment, "NEVERTHELESS..." Why don't people understand the simplicity of the Constitution? It is LAW. Your weakling Mueller has this behind him, not some damn policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Don't know who that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Occam would not agree with the convolution that is determinism. Nor does God.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nope. I am comparing what is said on the one hand and then contradicted on the other.
Yes, by picking out verses, ignoring the conditions for each. Doesn't work that way.
So much for "dying for our sins", forgiveness and to "love our enemies", then , eh?
You miss the entire point of the atonement. That Jesus died for our sins does not absolve us of them just be cause he did. He did it with the intent that we take responsibility for those sins, repent of them, remove that stripe Jesus took for us, individually, and take it on ourselves to be forgiven of them. We still must pay the debt of our sins as best we can, or Jesus has suffered needlessly, and that is not the bargain he made with us. We must acknowledge our sins were ours. Only by that process are we forgiven. Otherwise, we are not, and will suffer the pains of wickedness, just as Jesus suffered. Justice demands that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
We receive light, sound, touch: physics.
And so you begin a list of activities concluding in a decision to act. A process.
What If, after all that thinking, I choose something else? The freedom of speech, a willful act, does not compel me to speak. Your determinism insists that once begun, the process only concludes by action driven by the universe. What if I say, "no?" Did the universe go through all that just for me to choose another path? Nope, because you've laid out the universe's process, and it must go through it again to justify my rejection.
Occam turns in his grave.
Created: