Athias

No... because someone's sexuality and forcing yourself on someone sexually (see the words are different sexually and sexuality) do not correspond. An asexual person can indeed rape other people - would it be of sexual attraction? No. Doesn't mean its not rape, again, seeeemantics. 

then psychology would lecture Faxlaw about survivor's guilt, about victim-blaming, about gaslighting, 

and all sorts of principles that contribute to survivors of horrendous tragedies bottling up their emotions instead of reporting the crime. 

In autocracies like China and Iran, yeah they are brutal thugs indeed. In more democratic nations not so much but partially at times.

You're a devout anarchist, I'm not going to 'deconvert' you by one clever post. Your devotion to anarchy is akin to a Nun's devotion to Christ almighty and Lord God.

Government is a set ---meeting--- of rational and irrational people deciding human "rights" as "moral concepts".

Government is a set ---meeting--- of rational and irrational people deciding who is rational and who is not.

In you anarchist and chaotic brute force meetings of supposedly ---"only rational people"--- we would have government ---irrespective of what you want to call it, that, will bring explosives, guns and ammo to decide who is rational, who is moral etc.

 

2232  or there about based on my set of formula/factors.

Asexuality - as in reference to homosexual or heterosexual is referring to who you are attracted to

Heterosexual - "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex:"

Homosexual - "a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex"

In general you are correct

and a good portion of asexual people simply do not have libido, do not derive pleasure from sexual intercourse - however - people who simply feel no sexual attraction towards others also fit into this category - as in specific reference to sexualities - not sexuality. 

Anarchy is all cute and fun until the thugs who fought to free you end up ruling you with an iron fist.

My girlfriend rated me as an A, sexually.

The entire field of psychology would like a word with you

And  who assigns those rights. Government.

If not government, then it is chaotic mess of who ever comes to the meeting with largest guns { most explosives } to rule those they are in disagreement with.

Right wing wants to go back to the good ole days when men were men and women were women and and a exposed gun on hip, shoulder, legs arms is the best way forward for humanity to meet in the streets, the shopping malls, restaurants. park and day care center.

Social Contract - "an agreement among the members of a society or between a society and its rulers about the rights and duties of each"

Perhaps you could attack it semantically, technically taxes themselves aren't a social contract, but paying taxes is indeed a social contract - the agreement implicitly signed whenever you pay taxes is that you have a duty to help pay for the government's expenses and that government will create infrastructure, work, income, etc.

Your anarchy will solve it all.

Then pray tell - what is the obligation that the poor get from receiving benefits? Because the only thing that occurs to me is taxes. There is no obligation. 

Also... yes - taxes are a form of a social contract 

You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.

The Left Wing programs don't go wrong when passed untik the Right Wing plot to sabotage it. That's a fact, not a theory. This is precisely what occurred with Medicaid that devolved into Obamacare.

Now - I agree that social mobility is not at all what the American Dream purports it to be, but that certainly isn't because of programs WHICH RAISE SOCIAL MOBILITY

no - its the insistence that capitalism will solve all your problems, the harder we go pure capitalism, the harder our mobility will fall - especially whenever we see the end result of capitalism, monopolization. 

So your claim is that the programs that left-wing advocate for, don't actually help the poor, they come back to the rich?

Wait -this is literally just a spiel about not liking taxes, but...

if people have enough money to afford stuff like healthcare, rent, and food - then they can get a job and actually afford their taxes... ya know - unlike whenever you can't get out of poverty.

This really just seems like you not liking taxes - we call it a social contract.

Actually -we call it being intellectually honest

I do not KNOW that you have a bias, it is merely being suggested by the information presented

it actually is an argument, just one your afraid of using

Of course, you could not be afraid at all - but then it just seems like you can't help but get caught up In semantics. 

The reason they do come up empty is often due to the Right Wing filibustering them to hell and back via Senate loopholes in procedure and things along those lines

Not to mention the incentives behind these empty promises: they can blame the right wing as the reasons these programs aren't successful all while depending on their poverty to solicit their votes.

It's not a trick. When it's absent you get the tier of poverty that nations like Ethiopia see.

Because it just seems to me that you have a bias

you know - talking about specific things applied to an entire political ideology, and ya know - not a general concept. 

Let me be clear - how does the left-wing exploit poverty?

Expand on what this means please.

No, they don't. The less competent their nation is, the worse the nation they're leading and thriving in is.

Thriving in a street brawl isn't usually better than being mediocre in a fancy arena.

And by exploit do you mean tries to seek an end to it?

Because aside from that I don't get what you're insinuating their bud.

A: Where you do you get that information. 

T: Myths

A: Well aren't you are retard moron with no common sense, a murderer, child abuser and should have no right to your religion. 

T: OK. Or if you say what you should which is fuck you, your a violent child molesters who deserves to die. 

If your talking about government in general, typically, the right-wing is much more authoritarian than the left...

These are the facts. You can now proceed to spread your lies.

To be clear I mean the blueprint for identity is an emergent property of evolution. 

It’s what helps us navigate our environment as individuals. 

And yes, this includes solipsism as a result. I’m not saying it’s perfect. 

Yes - we made up math - kind of - but the principles of math are from observation not prescription

the same cannot be said for grammar. In other words - the intentions behind the words mean much more than the semantics. 

It's pretty simple  - just give me the reasons, and if they are true and logically consistent with your conclusions - then oh - there ya go. 

The use of anything grammatically is entirely arbitrary based on the syntax of the people using it. Language is human-made, it's not some concept we observed to be the state of the universe like math or science - it is things we made up.

And, no.... no I don't - if you know that my claims are bullshit, that they're wrong, then you know why you thought them wrong. Merely stating that they're wrong isn't enough evidence for anyone but someone who listens to dogma - if you don't have a reason then you have asserted my argument is wrong, and convoluted with no substantiation - which would mean you less than credible. 

“Excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”

Identity is an emergent property of evolution.

It cannot be given without coercion, no - but notice that a familiar relationship is different from a romantic relationship - even by your definition

I showed they were common by literally quoting various websites that separate the two.

I know what I mean when I write or, and you taking an atypical definition of or (as in not the one typically used for the word or) is your thing

if you find it regressive, fine - I just don't accept your interpretation there.

Well, you made the claim that "the divide is arbitrary" and that my arguments are full of extraneous details... you have the burden of proof then, as you have that burden it is your responsibility (intellectually) to provide the proof, don't expect me to outline it for you. If you know I'm wrong, then you should already have the proof, otherwise, your claim was unsubstantiated, aside from an attempt at moving the goalpost, I don't see the point in asking "what evidence".

You've stated my argument - then call it convoluted and wrong.... I fail to see your rebuttal, you merely asserting that it is wrong isn't evidence that is, nor is the fact that something is complicated make it wrong - love it complicated.

Also - that's merely you failing to grasp everything that entails the word "consent", because that is part of being in a relationship at all - it typically requires giving a large part of your trust, and the mere act, the label, is big enough that you have to ask to ensure that you are indeed in a relationship. Maybe it seems silly to you, but different individuals have different needs in that department.

You see, I would know what I mean when I write something, cause I wrote it, and I can tell you - that the word or - means to connect two different possibilities - just as it does in the quote above (which you have failed to actually account for, completely dropping that point). 

You claim the divide is arbitrary, prove it - you've alleged that I'm wrong all this time - fine then - stop dallying around and actually provide a rebuttal, you stating that its arbitrary is like me just saying - "Oh, no you're wrong." You don't, "to look past extraneous and irrelevant details", you claim you know what's extraneous or irrelevant, then ignore the main point - the problem is that you don't know what the main point is - or you ignore it purposely. 

Because the main point of those little definitions was to prove that the definition of romantic and sexual being separate is not "atypical" as you ascribed, it is quite common

This entire thing is you insisting you're right - if you have no further valid arguments to make then I don't see a reason to respond. There is no "atypical definition of romantic" being used here - several different sources cite these things (romantic and sexual) as different forms of desire. 

Perhaps the definition is atypical for you, but it is not an atypical definition in general. 

The fundamental problems with  some incest is consent

As you know a large and very important part of ANY ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP is consent, it is a necessary concept that both parties must freely give. Due to the inherent power dynamic between parents and child, consent not influenced by the parent is impossible to accurately determine, therefore one ought not commit it.

"That's only some of them though!" You might interject, "What about cousins and other cousins, there isn't a power dynamic at all!"

  

I'm actually not sure, besides the obvious genetic problems with children produced from inbreeding, of course, relationships aren't maintained just to sire children. So I'm not sure for those parts, not that I'm gonna make the claim without evidence. 

So, some incest is, some incest isn't, at least according to what I know currently

You just plainly state: "you're wrong", while ignoring reasoning.

Perhaps you feel you've already addressed them

I feel you like to insist until people agree with you after your initial appeals to "logic" run dry.

I plainly state: "even if you're right" so here you are addressing the thing you would reach after you've rebuked my other response - which clearly, at least to me, means you didn't fully comprehend the writing there.

I feel more and more confident in winning our debate by the response.

You have a tendency to ignore the central point, well purposely anyways, and try to get your opponent on the details, make em' bigger than they are

Data can only be transferred WITHIN a system.

is a puzzle at all, because you have violated the very point that Zed was trying to explain to Edge; that a puzzle need not have context,  just pattern. As Zed explained in his #59, your "solution," given in your #81 applies mathematic functions within the consecutive series of numbers, but one has no idea what functions are to be applied in what order. You have, first, an  exponent [really multiplication of the same number], then simple multiplication, then division, and then addition, thus using three pf the four simple functions [minus subtraction]. Even that subtraction would be the missing function is self-explanitory; it is "minus," that is, a missing function. Fine. But, the sequence applied is still a problematic issue due to it not being an obvious pattern without convoluted attempts, and this goes beyond the use of intelligence, requiring some guesswork to arrive at the solution.

no pattern at all because the sequence of application of math function does not follow a logical sequence. Logic is replaced by guess work. That is not puzzle-solving at all.

Whereas, Zed's first puzzle, though also remote in its solution, uses, consistently, the same, most simple of math functions: addition, and the[pattern] of its use is consistent.

--> @FLRW

No incorrect.    It's a puzzle not a sequence.

Therefore, presented as a patterned puzzle, I agree with Zed's solution: 6.

So your answer is "6"? There's no need to separate yourself from your answer by stating, "one initially doesn't need to come up with anything other than 6..." And no, the answer is not "6." (You were close, though.) You see, I can't expect you to figure it out just from its mere presentation--not even for a "keen" puzzler like yourself. Of course, you're going to state that it's "6" based on the only reasoning you can grasp from its presentation, and that is its order. But if I keep the rules to myself, how can the answer be determined by you or anyone other than guessing at the rules?

Zed, I'll have to admit I did not see this string until tonight, and trying the first puzzle, I''ll have to depend on your good graces that I solved it before reading your #68, in which you solved it, but I did not solve it until after your #59. I realized that it was additive, but at first fooled by trying to include the 20 cipher. I then realized it was a red herring, and just added the first three ciphers in each series, and backed into 18 as the solution. I take it that this is the end of the puzzle; that the pattern is not  intended to continue.

Whereas, I have stopped reading as of your #68 to enter these comments.

Was replying to yoyr question about why I said I could solve it faster.

As for your puzzle, 12 came to mind as did 32 but I don't comprehend why exactly.

Do you simply fail to grasp the definition here?

"used to connect DIFFERENT possibilities:" - you did nothing but hand wave the definition aside

Again - using the definition of [OR] which is to connect different ["possibilities"] - as in platonic, pure, [OR] non-sexual romantic love - how do we know this - because of the example - where she speaks of an infatuation and which is typically not used to describe anything aside from romantic attraction

Let's say I'm wrong though

that she is saying something like - a container for storing water or a canteen - where its clarifying a phrase

(though the fact that the list is not preceded by a definition makes this much less convincing)

I would just argue that the platonic that she is discussing is functionally different from the notion that you have of it. And I reference her examples to prove that:

Contiously language such as "fall in love" or "experience romantic passion" which has almost NEVER been used to describe platonic relationships - so EVEN IF and this is stretching - I agree with you that she is describing them as the same - their is a clear distinction here inbetween what is typically considered platonic love and the love being described here as platonic (this is again, if I agree which I don't)

I instantly thought of letters when I saw the code and saw 1 was the wrong answer.

You are providing examples of when that IS NOT THE CASE 

however the fact of the matter is that "Notion" and "Notions" do not directly change the meaning of the terms in any effective way

you are stretching the hell out of this to make it agree with your conclusion

even though every other indicator does not

it is referring to different parts of the singular notion of love

and you have failed to account for the actual definition of or provided.

Interesting, I would have got it fasters than Athias anyway but I was pretty sure the puzzle was Beta Delta. Anyway, what exactly makes the second puzzle ETA? 

"notion of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"

and 

"notions of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love" 

change nothing with the syntax.

There is no difference here with notions and notion

perhaps if there was you would have a point.

However, beyond any of this, you simply wrong

"Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love", this statement clearly indicates that the author does indeed believe that romantic love does not require sexual desire

this entire thing by you about grammar is a red herring - drop it.

You've continued to make assertions without actually looking at the evidence here

You do realize that you can list modifiers?

They are all modifiers of love, as in - different forms of love

and yes - as somebody and someone - people can switch singular and plural pronouns - thats how nouns work in general

Grammar Lesson: [LINK]

Or - "used to connect different possibilities:"

For example - "Is it Tuesday or Wednesday today?"

Or can also be used as such: "used after a negative verb to mean not one thing and also not another:"

For example: "The child never smiles or laughs."

You are factually wrong

yes -you are right that can be the state sometimes, however it is not here -

so given the context we can safely say that the author is using "notion" as a plural

as she goes on to literally say that they are different - you are quite insistent on your cherry-picking.

This is a complete strawman

No, I’m not. I never claimed God 2 was all knowing.

While definitions of God vary, some of its central [tenets] are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything.

God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants

In fact the entire point is that an all knowing God is not possible, because even if there is a God prime there is no way for him to know that he is God prime.

Again -- it is the fuel of the possessiveness that most typically determines if it is a romantic attraction or platonic, but... if one of your friends is very possessive of you in that regard it is certainly possible.

I can indeed argue that their is support for my conclusion, the fact that it has not been explored does not mean it is false, it simply means that the neurological data is not all there, notice that most of my arguments are not neurological - that's why - if there was solid data, that's all I would need, just showing the source, but there is not, hence why I only used it as an example, in fact, I explicitly stated that the only purpose of the quote was to provide insight, nothing else.

You are quite clearly taking her out of context, however, even given what you think - there is a key grammatical insight you have seemed to miss, the comma, after pure and platonic there are commas, in a way that is clearly indicative of a list - the author is simply saying that they all fall into the same category of controversial to prove