Athias

It's more than that, but if a household earns below $45 K per year, the low income people get shown where the better paying jobs are that are attainable for them as a means of increasing their salary and getting them out of poverty. 

This would be more effective than the counterproductive war on poverty.

When people have excess money, they spend some of it and they invest some of it.  Some of it they would save, and I factored that in the tax plan.

I'd have federal agents show the homeless people where the better paying jobs are that don't require a college degree.  There's only half a million homeless in existence.  Hiring 5000 federal agents to get the homeless out of poverty should take a little more than 3 months if each federal agent liberates 1 homeless person from poverty by showing them where better high school grad jobs are.  The jobs are in a sheet.  The homeless merely pick their favorite job from the list.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit#gid=320988619

What do you mean from this?

What you say, sort of agrees with what I say. Though you might not care to admit it.

But if there was no such thing as debt, how would society organise itself?

I would suggest that it would require agreement,

cooperation

and selflessness

Something that the human species is not collectively good at.

Debt and therefore economic and social disparity is what maintains social structure.

You're comparing the !8th century with the 21st.

Things just don't work like that anymore.

As I stated. National debt is merely a concept that manifests as numbers within a contrived global system.

Modern global debt is just an algorithm.

Currently, the US's GDP per capita is $60,000 per year. 

The healthcare bonus would be the amount of additional salary that employers would have to pay their employees because they wouldn't have to pay for their healthcare with a UHC system.

Some of the money would get spent on UHC, but the rest of it the individuals would use for spending and investing, both of which would be subject to tax.

Subsidy is the wrong term.  Since any adult making less than $45K per year would be shown where better paying jobs are that only require a college degree

I made a sheet for what those jobs would be

whatever job they pick would yield a higher salary if its from the list, and this would mean that it would inevitably directly or indirectly result in more taxation from the government.

You are thinking too much.

If you want sources for what reality is, go to plato or socrates, heck aristole or kant can help ya. 

My message is dont let what you know about words confuse what is real and to talk to people in ways they understand. The cyclic nature of reality always had intelligent and common understandings of reality. Be fluent in common.

By the 5 senses. The reality expressed is the reality given and asserted.

If you ask 1000 people the same question in usage of 5 senses and they give roughly the same answer. Ie buildings are taller than people. Water needed for survival, trees often having leaves or needles, etc. 

Yes, as can everyone else. 

Initial salary 60,000

Health Care Bonus 13,000

Low Income Subsidy 7,000

National debt is merely a concept that manifests as numbers.

Debt is necessary for maintaining social stability. In so much as debt and wealth maintain a structured society.

Without assumed wealth, debt and disparity, there would be unorganisable chaos.

As far as I am aware, save for a few small territories such as Brunei, Lichtenstein and Palau all other nations have a national debt. 

National debt is simply the way that things have been contrived to work.

As they actually exist.

4. Cross-Thread Contamination

Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes elsewhere on the site up in an unrelated thread for the purpose of harassing, mocking, or insulting another member. Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible.

I presented a fair comparison of two reference texts.

Acceptance of either data source is largely based upon trust.

It is therefore fair to suggest that one should not "depend" upon any unverified data source.

Seems many of the new kids are making posts about how they are pissed off at people "using big words".

Why do so many people wish to limit the possibilities presented by a diverse language? Language is the only means... the ONLY means... that we have available to convey knowledge and ideas. To limit ones vocabulary is to limit both of these things.

Reality the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

I saw stats that said the last great depression caused 7 million deaths. The numbers from the Coronavirus deaths if we did nothing at worst would have been 1 million though more likely just a few hundred thousand. However we have shut down the economy meaning we will definitely be causing the next great depression by doing this. Adjusted for the increased population size, this means we will kill 14 million people with this shut down. Here is my question. why do retards think shutting down the world to save 500,000 boomers is worth 14 million people dying over?

I could do it on my own, but since you've educated yourself could you supply a link for that Luciferian ritual?

BTW, the practice of Catholic Priests baptizing babies makes my stomach ill, some of the things these guys do is pretty sick...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxE--jAIiQ8

Watch this idiot slap this baby...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B63kNwqRSRk

I always thought it was two individual processes, one.... Baptism being an outward confession or commitment with there being an outward ritual or sign and two....the baptism of the Spirit which is an internal process or undergoing with an internal commitment or sign. Kind of like a marriage per say where there is an outward ceremony or binding and then of course there is the binding of the two with inward commitments involving their love but I could be wrong of course. I was Baptized with water as a young kid so maybe I'm just partial to it. But my intentions were pretty much the above. 

Okay I see what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree yet, but are you saying that John never literally Baptized Jesus in water? 

I actually normally agree with your assessments about religious sacraments especially in the context of Catholicism but Baptism is actually quite universal because of its meaning. In that sense I believe that its more of an individual symbolic gesture even though it can be utilized by any number of cults (including Catholics). The meaning of Baptism has universal appeal, it's not really specific to any one claim or Luciferian rituals. Therefore I believe it to be a more pure practice, more of a commitment or outward sign of appreciation and renewal which agrees with the individuals intent. In this context I don't believe it belongs to Luciferians. 

I see, that's interesting (should have read lol), without reading through this thread what is it John was referencing and what does he mean my Baptism? or how is that achieved according to John? 

I don't think I have any real argument with you that I can tell at the moment. Christians using the same method  of Baptism (submerging-reemerging) is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Unless there's an argument of copying from/stealing from. Then it would be like any other pagan practice/ceremony/holiday/mythology copying argument.

(As a side-note, I'm not aware of them practicing submergence in Baptism).

And an issue with some atheists. I've heard an atheist say when asked if they had been born again, said yes, because they were Baptized. The atheist went on to argue that if an astronaut tried to become born again while orbiting, they couldn't because they wouldn't have the water, or necessary amount of water, or proper facility to get Baptized.

As far as your conclusion that the Water Baptism practiced by John the Baptist or Christians in general is veiled Luciferian symbolism

And, I can respect your opinion. I don't see any reason to accept it as anything but your opinion.

I don't see any reason to think that the reincarnation of Asar has anything to do with Christ's command for His followers to be Baptized, unless you can show me otherwise.

Forgive me if these fall into the category of it should be so obvious, but I definitely would like clarification.

When you say so-called "Christians", this could mean false Christians (which I think is usually the case). Or, there really is no such thing as a Christian. (We're just unaware Luciferian practitioners). I'm not even sure how important this is to your conclusion of veiled Luciferian ritual.

So I assume what you're suggesting is that when I was Baptized, I, and the ministry Baptizing me were unknowingly practicing a Luciferian rite. And John the Baptist the same.

What's not clear is whether or not you're stating that John was unbeknownst to us Christians, in on this Luciferian rite so to speak.

So your impression of Wikipedia was therefore, also irrelevant.

Fair enough.

Though it was you who initially presented a data sequence for analysis

which allowed for me to make an inevitable comparison.

So why do you criticize me for your own error of judgement?

Okay. I (think) I understand what you're saying now.

Well, if you think I'm implying that Baptism requires submergence into water, then no. I'm not.

Christ commands His followers to be Baptized. Whether it's submerged into water or not, the believer is to obey that command. The reason I referred to being submerged in a pool, lake, or river was simply because that's generally how it's done nowadays. John who performed the Baptism of Repentance Baptized in a river. I would say those being Baptized probably were submerged. But whether they were or not is not the issue. My point was simply that the water doesn't do the cleansing.

I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.

Are you of the opinion that historically speaking, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone?

Or that there was no John the Baptist?

This thread is not meant to suggest the only, or ultimate reason for water baptism. But like many commands in the Bible, suggest a lesson.

First off, when a convert accepts the call to be baptized, they are not submitting to being cleansed by the H2o they will be submerged in. If someone is baptized in a swimming pool, the water doesn't transform into a divine detergent. It remains the same water with the same  chlorine. If it's a river or lake, it will remain the same murky water, and probably won't make much difference to the nearby fish. Water baptism itself won't save anyone's soul. It's not ultimately necessary for salvation. If it was, the thief on the cross who repented would not have been allowed entrance into paradise.

It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure. But the water itself does no spiritual cleansing. Baptism is symbolic, and an act of obedience.

When one becomes a believer, the point where God meets them in a divine way, they find they have a calling.

The comparison was there to make.

Wiki says it is less reliable for the reasons it gave. Sorry, just quoting their own self-assessment. No problem starting with wiki, but it should not be the end of the search.

There are an alarming number of you who depend on wikipedia, alone, for argument citations in debate and forum. Do me a favor: Google "wikipedia reliability" and load the first hit. Tell me that you do not encounter the following: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong." [bolding by wiki, not me]

I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct

I don't think you've proven a bloody thing,

You are not being honest.

You are assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God.

People have been employing this tactic for centuries and it simply doesn't work.

Yes one admires your cognitive and literary capabilities.

Nonetheless your reply was self explanatory. In so much has your reply was only confirmation of what I expressed previously.

Clever but ultimately futile.

Show me God.

Nonetheless lets dial back.

The truism nor the atheist has ever sought to deny the existence of a god. 

In fact the atheist and the truism emphatically state that the existence of a god cannot be disproved.

Nor has the truism or the atheist asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god. 

Nor has the atheist or the truism suggested that the theist should stop believing in a god.

Therefore the atheist is being honest.

All that the atheist asks is for the theist to also be honest and accept the truism.

So why can theists not be honest?

You have a basic misunderstanding of atheism.

The atheist cannot deny something that cannot be denied.

The atheist simply does not believe.

And if gods are not physical then they are an assumption.

And the truism remains just as ever.

Be honest...No amount of your clever words will ever prove the existence of a god.

The honest atheist is certain that they cannot disprove the existence of gods and therefore has nothing to prove.

So the truism remains so.

Oddly, for such a wordsmith, you appear to also have a basic misunderstanding of the word belief.

Well.

"Epistemology" is what it is and does nothing to explain or reduce the dilemma that is, mans uncertainty. Epistemology is just another internal exercise concerning the manipulation and ordering of data.

So we accept operational parameters  within a certain level of internal certainty based upon acquired data.

Therefore a concept is the internal manipulation of data and as such gods are internally valid and therefore able to be regarded as an internal certainty and I would imagine that no reasonable person would deny the existence of gods as an internal, conceptual certainty. Similarly no reasonable person would seek to deny the theists ability to convert their internal certainty into an assumed external reality (belief).

 Nonetheless, the theist makes an assumption based upon internal processes. They assume that their interpretation of data and god concept unequivocally proves the existence of a god as an external reality.... If this is not correct, then why does the theist struggle to accept the truism?

All that the truism asks, is for the theist to be honest and accept their god concept for what it is and also for what it has become, which is an internal certainty and a consequent assumption.

Same old same old.

I think that I will refer to it as Athiasism.

So prove the existence of an external god then.

And how do you think that knowledge/information/data (other than inherent functionality) gets into your brain?......I would suggest, acquisition.

The term acquired data is therefore aptly descriptive.

At he end of the proverbial day Athias.

The best that we can both do is assume that we are certain of something.

And I assume that there is an externality and that the mass has internality.

And as there is no consistency in the god concept it is reasonable to assume that assumed gods are sometimes assumed to be external, but nonetheless, the internal concept in what ever form, is only resultant of internal data manipulation rather than an externally real god..

All that one asks is for proof of the external god rather than for proof of an internal assumption or concept.

One doesn't doubt the nature of the internal concept, what one doubts is the existence of the external god.

So hard proof please and less Athiasims.

Athias and therefore athiasism has one intent.

That is the glorification and adoration of their own intellect.

I would suggest that they are really not that interested in a god.

Though the truism has never sought for proof of a god.

All that is required is for the theist to admit that there is currently no real proof of a god.

Since you never substantiated your claims, I need not mine. I asked you to do so and you refused, now you demand proof from me. It doesn't work that way.

I'm sure that's probably a joke, unless you actually believe that people can pop things into existence from their minds? 

You probably should read it considering it substantiates what I said. 

They are basically one and the same.

I already explained, no object.

You didn't meet your burden of proof. 

Neither do yours. On that we agree.

Evidently not.

The mind does not pop things into reality. Concepts of the mind only exist within the mind.

That's how logic works.

Claimants have the burden of proof, I provided a link for you to read.

I pointed out it wasn't logically consistent.

There is no hard evidence, no one has ever provided any.

Merriam Webster also refers to that definition as an intransitive verb; without object.

You first claimed they do exist, but you did not provide hard evidence for their existence, your claim can be dismissed.

Claimants have the burden of proof

No, you took the definition as an intransitive verb instead of a noun. That was your confusion.

Perception of the mind to understand a concept is not the same as perception of sight or hearing.

That however, is not the same thing as the perception of a concept of the mind that cannot be seen, felt or tasted. They are two completely different things.

You will not find the qualifier of "existence" in the definition of perception. 

While a statement may be true to it's logical conclusion, that does not lead to the existence of something.

Again, you will not find any reference to existence in the definition of tautology. 

Since there is no hard evidence to suggest the existence of gods or spiritual beings, then it is logical they don't exist.

To claim they exist by tautology is not valid.

By the same token I won't entertain your contributions that lack substance. On that, we agree.

Nope. It doesn't matter what claim is made, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.

If one perceives of the mind, that does not equate to the existence of their subject. You are confusing perception with existence.

Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your premises.

So, whatever you say is the ultimate truth and everyone else is of no consequence?

No, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Yes, they do.

You made the premise, you substantiate it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.

The claim has no evidence to support it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.

Thank you. I don't see how you showed a logical incoherence.

You are applying one approach to atheists and another to theists

which IS the incoherence itself.

Whether subjective or objective, the same must apply to both groups, one does not get special treatment.

False premise, God is not perceived.

False premise, spiritual beings have never been shown to exist.

Mon Dieu! la Polynésie française! Je suis jaloux! Je viens de la califiornie du sud, mais j'ai vécu en Provence pendant trois ans à la fin des années soixante. Bonjour, mon ami.

Did you explain that logical incoherence? I may have missed that and would be happy if you pointed it out.

When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.

I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.

Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.

What do you think?

Remember, a percentage is a ratio. In order for you to relate levels of certainty, you'd have to be able to perceive each part of your scale (from one to 100.) If you don't know what 100 percent is, then how can you characterize anything you presume to know as a level of certainty? And this is quite analogous to my argument. If "actual existence" as it's been argued is something independent of perception, then why would one relate what one does perceive to that which they can't perceive? It's not really on a scale from one to 100; it's a scale from one to x, where x is unknowable.

Why would it then be at all significant that the "God concept," as you put it, has an "external reality" when your experience of an external reality is based on an assumption? And the level of certainty you pointed out back then isn't really a level of certainty in that context because as you admitted you don't proffer outside of an assumption that what you're doing is actually having an external influence. And as I argued then, if you didn't have any grasp of 100 percent, then how could you relate any "level" of certainty when certainty is an unknown.

The problem is with your posit of an "external" reality, zedvictor. In order for you to contain an external reality within epistemological parameters, you must control for the experience of existence independent of one's mind. Such a feat would be paradoxical and logically incoherent. You are not trivializing or even qualifying the existence of God(s) by claiming he/it is real inside one's head. The "truth" is, everything we know exists, exists "inside our heads." Even your physical senses must conform to the express function of your mind's faculties.

So then if "external reality" is an epistemological insignificance, what weight does it bear in any argument over the existence of God? None.

Because it's not a truism. Your argument essentially reduces to this: atheists can no more disprove the subjectivity of God(s) than a theist can prove the objectivity of God(s.) But objectivity is logically incoherent because it necessitates that one rejects one's own being the subject of one's experience. Proof is irrelevant to that which is logically incoherent. In other words, the theist bears no obligation whatsoever to substantiate their God objectively, or as you put it, manifest in an external reality (a logical incoherence.) You yourself admitted that you can never be certain that what you do has an external influence, so why are setting standards of proof and quality based on that which you concede is an assumption?

Yes, I mentioned that it would be folly for an atheist, or anyone to try and prove a negative. It can only remain that atheists, or anyone would keep their minds open to any hard evidence that would be revealed.

Twice?

And I, a theist, have proven God exists using two logically sound arguments:

1.

All which is perceived must exist.

God is perceived.

Therefore, God exists.

The major premise is irrefutable. The minor premise can be subject to parameters, but those very parameters will subject the metrics of counterarguments.

2.

All material or spiritual beings exist.

God is a spiritual being.

Therefore, God exists.

The major premise is tautological; the minor premise is tautological.

Does the world know of this hard evidence?

I'm sure it would make you famous but I've not read any headlines as yet of that discovery.

Wouldn't the worlds population make that assessment if hard evidence were made available?

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

I would add that for an atheist to make a claim of God's nonexistence, they'd be hard pressed to prove a negative, so it would be folly to do so.

On the other hand, if a theist made the claim that God existed, they would have to provide proof in the form of some hard evidence

but I don't think that's ever been accomplished or else we'd all know it by now.

Guru Athias induced it would seem.

Same old same old.

I think that I will refer to it as Athiasism.

So prove the existence of an external god then.

And how do you think that knowledge/information/data (other than inherent functionality) gets into your brain?......I would suggest, acquisition.

The term acquired data is therefore aptly descriptive.

What in the fuck is wrong with liberals. Where they think people should get positions based on anything other than merit.

Wouldn't it be better to have the first female vice president be picked because no better candidate for the job exists?

Are you mad he didn't include any of the other 57 genders?

"Epistemology" is what it is and does nothing to explain or reduce the dilemma that is, mans uncertainty.

Epistemology is just another internal exercise concerning the manipulation and ordering of data.

So we accept operational parameters  within a certain level of internal certainty based upon acquired data.

Therefore a concept is the internal manipulation of data and as such gods are internally valid and therefore able to be regarded as an internal certainty and I would imagine that no reasonable person would deny the existence of gods as an internal, conceptual certainty. Similarly no reasonable person would seek to deny the theists ability to convert their internal certainty into an assumed external reality (belief).

Nonetheless, the theist makes an assumption based upon internal processes. They assume that their interpretation of data and god concept unequivocally proves the existence of a god as an external reality...

If this is not correct, then why does the theist struggle to accept the truism?

All that the truism asks, is for the theist to be honest and accept their god concept for what it is and also for what it has become, which is an internal certainty and a consequent assumption.

The Athias style academic discourse is all well and good but only seeks to distract from the real issue.

I decide the subject of my topic,

I decide relevance to me,

"Clear" to whom? You mean it "seems" that way to you.

You placed "panic" in quotes because you are not yet dishonest enough to deny that you are the one calling it a panic.

I'm not even talking about the corona virus epidemic.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

You told me how you think A!

I questioned it.

I believe you have intimate experience with the manner in which you submit arguments. I just know you are not always  logical.

I did. Does it surprise you that I can mention things you didn't?

Esteem is vitally important to logical consistency.

Your observation, of course, is royally immune from being crap.

Playing the victim doesn't become you, and such ploys never work on me.

You can tell me, but since your telling me does not make me wrong, I can dismiss your perspective as subjective crap.

The fact that you entertained a tangent shows you are a poor judge of your concerns.

I did draw the conclusion I wanted, and you appear to be unhappy that I did.

I've addressed every point you raised against the OP. If you have no rebuts, I have nothing to add.

No amount of fanciful words can make a god concept externally real.

So the god concept is real enough inside your head.

But can you be honest and admit that you have no way of converting this internal notion into an external reality?

When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.

I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.

Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.

What do you think?

Remember, a percentage is a ratio. In order for you to relate levels of certainty, you'd have to be able to perceive each part of your scale (from one to 100.) If you don't know what 100 percent is, then how can you characterize anything you presume to know as a level of certainty? And this is quite analogous to my argument. If "actual existence" as it's been argued is something independent of perception, then why would one relate what one does perceive to that which they can't perceive? It's not really on a scale from one to 100; it's a scale from one to x, where x is unknowable.

Why Kamala Harris is not a good fit = Biden picking Harris as his VP, as a nod to her early strength in the race, would also be a nod to African Americans, who in South Carolina are almost single-handedly responsible for launching Biden back into the race and then well into the lead following up on Super Tuesday.... The thing is though, Biden will almost certainly win the African American vote no matter who is his VP.... Being Obama's VP gives him more credit with black voters than any person of color he could select as his Vice President, so having Kamala Harris fill that spot doesnt really bring anything to the table for him that he doesnt already have. 

You think "skeptical" is more, apropos, your thoughts on marriage show that  cynicism is more correct.

You demonstrated it yourself. And yes, I know you don't think you did.

It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you.

"This" is always what you say it is, right? Royal pronouncements don't work with me A. You admitted entertaining this tangent. If it is derailment, it's you doing the derailment.

I brought up the topic. I made the thread, why would I derail what I brought up?

No sir. You're the one who claimed it was an argument to exploit a panic.

Earlier in his presidency, the people of New York and California said Trump was not welcome in their states. Their governors instructed state officers not to cooperate with federal officials.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

Childish hypocrites, the lot of them. And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.

This again is your cynicism coloring your perspective. You even think you know my intent.

Federal officers, to my knowledge, have always been, and will always be, outside of my emotional capacity. Whatever that means.

Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.

I do not think impressions are irrelevant.

The talking point about "seem" is an old clunker meant to sound better than the usefulness it affords.

While that itself is questionable

even if true, would not mean your argument are always true

But it shows high esteem to judge the logical consistency of your arguments with an absolute.

They aren't necessarily.

How is that an ad hominem? It's like observing that a person is tall. But being autistic can interfere with smooth communication.

What fact? It was provided after I predicted you would provide it.

Yes I am, as demonstrated in your comments about marriage, sorry, "legal" marriage. So what? You are alleging exploiting a panic. That is how debates work. Allegations are not wrong because you disagree with them.

And it is your cynicism that causes you to view legal marriage that way, the same cynicism causing you to think my motivation for my suggestion to Trump was petty politics.

If you actually believe this, then you are autistic.

Entertain whatever you will, but please stop claiming I'm the one trying to derail my own topic when its you entertaining a tangent.

I do remember you behaving as though it was.

You should be aware this is simply your opinion.

Every legally marrying couple should "love" the way you think they should, otherwise it's prostitution.

I got you

it shows that cynicism has corrupted your logical process, at least with some subjects.

I do know that no one, in all my years of experience, has sought a State's incarnation of "marriage". People marry simply because they love each other and want to be together. There are exceptions of course.

Now that I know how you think on the threads topic,

It isn't intended as an ad hominem, but I can understand why you would think it was.

I don't have any problem with safe-haven laws.

While maybe the pregnancies are from immaculate conception, I highly doubt it.

Regardless, the known result remains more abortions.

Forced via being denied her constitutional rights to her own health care decisions.

A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's."

You took a half-decade study of hundreds of cases, with confirmed statistical significance, and declared: "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc."

The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.

You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.

And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.

Derailment from what?

You are intelligent Athias

when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say?

You seem to believe

simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so.

You are very intelligent

but you may be autistic.

Which is why I didn't need to.

It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do,

and what motivates people to marry.

You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.

How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?

Not everything is win or lose.

But if you look at a young couple in love,

willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.

Sorry for the delay. My time on this site is divided due to moderation duties.

I did not know that pro-life individuals consider their identity a "sensationalist moniker."

I can however assure you it is generally not the same for pro-choice people.

Yes. As I have shown with evidence of experienced harm, and as the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld (I could similarly cite human rights laws in other countries).

The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions.

This isn't even a social experiment anymore, since its got that reliable result even in places with stronger conservative values.

Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.

Men do not suffer the same stigma.

Just glancing around this thread, how many insults have been thrown at women for having sex, and how many at men?

While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...