Fruit_Inspector

No, I think many high school teachers teach racism is the result of intentional individual prejudice as well as complex and subtle social dynamics.

Teaching (high school) children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is not teaching Critical Race Theory.

• Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?

CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US.

A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.

As for addressing the other specific mechanisms you've provided, those would take quite a bit more research, but concentration-dependence is at least a point of substantial concern.

the consensus within science is that ivermectin is unsafe.

1. Inhibits binding at ACE2 and TMPRSS2, keeping the virus from entering our cells.
   
2. Blocks alpha/beta importin (the virus cell taxi), keeping it from getting to the nucleus.
   
3. Blocks the viral replicase zipper (RdRp).
   
4. 3-Chimotrypsin protease inhibition (keeps the virus from assembling).
   
5. Ivermectin strengthens our natural antiviral cell activity by increasing our natural interferon production (this counters SARSCOV2 activity, which inhibits cellular interferon).
   
6. Decreases IL-6 and other inflammatory cytokines through NF Kappa Beta downregulation, taking the patient from a cytokine storm to calm.
   
7. Binds NSP14, necessary for viral replication, and blocks it (equals less virus).
   
8. Most important mechanism is inhibiting binding to CD147 receptor on red cells, platelets, lung, and blood cell lining. Ivermectin keeps the virus from binding here and decreases deadly clotting.
   

If you want to take “the universe created itself” off the table; you must INSERT - “the universe came from nothing” And/or “the universe has no cause” into your list.

For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was. It would have to exist before it existed. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Fruit_inspector self own(42): I bolded words that require time. violation of non contradiction requires that the universe exists inside time; or temporal causality still applies without time - this is a metaphysical assumption.

Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?

No: This is NOT incorrect.

“The universe came from nothing” does not violate non contradiction - it simply requires the metaphysical assumption that something can exist without itself having been caused.

If time is emergent from the universe - that the universe is itself atemporal; the word creation has no meaning - so your applying temporal rules to an atemporal universe. Which refutes the claim.

Fruit_inspector self own(43): Torpedoes his own argument. Even assuming all the refutations above don’t apply; Option three is that something caused the universe. The three options of fruits list also apply to any prospective cause of the universe. 

This would leave either infinite regress; or that something In reality is “eternal”.

Ignoring that this leaves out a whole bunch of options that fruit chopped out for no reason; the idea that the cause of the universe maybe eternal, but that it’s not possible for the universe itself to be eternal in some way is special pleading. Which refutes his original argument.

Fruit_inspector self own(35) - fruit changes the terms of his list. What he originally said was:

The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)

Now he’s changed that to:

the universe caused itself

I'm just going to assume that your answer is no, the law of noncontradiction is not a metaphysical assumption.

Since we can rule out option 2 [the universe is self-created] using the law of noncontradiction - which is not a metaphysical assumption - we have a basis to rule out at least one of our options without adding any metaphysical assumptions.

Fruit_inspector self own(22): continues to refuse to respond to argument:

Fruit_inspector self own(4): forgets what the argument is - the argument is not that his list is incomplete - but that all elements require additional metaphysical assumptions that cannot be assessed.

Objecting to object - peanuts out of poop; sifting through a 100 of my posts to find some way of splitting hairs in all the posts you ignored;

“I would say the only reasonable choice is option 3.”

I took that to mean probability. 

I am very happy if you meant “the only logical conclusion” - as that means that you’re argument is Deductive rather than inductive - which means you are assuming as true all the metaphysical assumptions you can’t possibly know, vs assuming them as probable. The issue is exactly the same and would render your conclusion invalid in both cases:

Fruit Inspector self-own (2): Asking a question in which his own conclusion fails for all answers.

• The universe is eternal
  
• The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
  
• Something caused the universe to come into being.
  

So to be clear, an uncaused cause would not be a product of time then?

Yes, it would be.

That’s as specific as I can be, anything further would be pure baseless speculation.

“Our understanding of how reality (specifically various aspects of causality) works is not sufficient to explain the existence of reality”

Your argument - was that the universe having been caused is a more likely explanation than the others - the universe not having a cause, causing itself, or being eternal.

In this sense; I mean “not correct” to mean “insufficient to explain”, rather than “inherently invalid”

• Reality exists and your premise is wrong
• Reality doesn't exist and your premise is right

To add to this however: your problem is that you drew a form conclusion. That something was probable.

How do you assess the likelihood that logic does or does not Apply?

How do you assess the likelihood that infinities can exist - that something may not have a cause?

So just to be clear, your understanding of how reality works can't explain reality. It seems we have two options to consider:

Your understanding of how reality works is at least partially incorrect, and it is possible for reality to exist according to how reality works.

Your understanding of how reality works is correct, and it is impossible for reality to exist according to how reality works.

I pick peanut #1.

*Our understanding of how reality works. 

Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.

Are logic and reason valid tools for assessing claims - even those regarding metaphysics?

I have Absolutely no clue whatsoever.

prod·uct

/ˈprädəkt/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1.an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale. "food products"

2. a thing or person that is the result of an action or process.

• Effect - "something that is produced by an agency or cause;"
  

It would just begin. Causes and effects would take place inside of it, as far as we could possibly deduce.

Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.

My premise:

Our understanding of reality is not correct - meaning that how our perceived reality works cannot be coherently applied to explain why our perceived reality exists without adding metaphysical assumptions which cannot themselves be validated or assessed. (IE: it is insufficient, and requires expansion of some in order to apply to the universe)

Your confusing my premise - that our understanding of reality is not correct - with my conclusion -that you’re pulling assumptions out of your arse to make up for it, and implying they are more likely than any other.

• "[that a cause and effect must be temporally related] is not correct."

• "that our understanding of reality is not correct"

• “that a cause and effect must be temporally related"

• "[that a cause and effect must be temporally related] is not correct."

Seriously though: the lengths you are going to in order to avoid an argument is hilarious.

*Our understanding of how reality works. 

Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.

But anything else is complete rank speculation with no basis

I mean come on - I covered this like 8 times in the posts you deliberately ignored because you have no ability to contest my point.

We observe reality, and have understood temporal principles of causality that are temporal, our understanding of reality is predicated upon time.

What we observe and understand of them; are completely unable to explain their own existence. Our reality can’t explain itself.

1. Your understanding of how reality works is at least partially incorrect, and it is possible for reality to exist according to how reality works.
   
2. Your understanding of how reality works is correct, and it is impossible for reality to exist according to how reality works.
   

How reality works is unable to explain reality

So to be clear, an uncaused cause would not be a product of time then?

Yes, it would be.

If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.

[YOU]: The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work;

[ME]: I will take this as an admission that your understanding of how things work is in error because it doesn't match reality.

When I say it’s a product of time I’m not saying that time itself created it. I’m saying it could only be the case within the framework of time.

Cool. I will start doing that. I will just chop our 95% of what you say, don’t link back to your argument; and when called out I will just assert that if was repetitive, a waste of my time and I summarized things

Do you honestly think this is a valid or intelligent way of having a discussion?

The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work;

it's not necesssarily a bad thing if they go out if their model was raping the public. that's just a sign of the excesses when barely utilized hospitals are kept afloat 

and i responded that if some hospitals go out of business, that's just the system working itself out. like maybe some rural hospitals, though there are already rural allowances made for medicare.

What happens if regulations force the hospital to lose money because they can't charge patients enough to cover the actual cost of their services?

the system will work itself out.

It’s an assumption based on logic and reason,

which brings us back to the beginning. Your evidence for god is nothing more than blind assertions and special pleading supporting the idea that there is a god, which is then used to claim that the uncaused cause is likely a god, which is then used to justify your blind assertions and why god gets a special set of rules (special pleading). It’s just one big circle.

If you still take issue with this then answer this question… can something be a cause without something else being an effect of it?

• An uncaused cause is the product of time.