Sidewalker

in 1984, Dee Snyder exposed the hypocrisy of that statement in a congressional hearing.

Regardless of how you feel about the political parties, you should really watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veoYcsH7Wrs

Dee Snyder exposed the rhetoric of "know it when you see it" to be simply "seeing what you want to see"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OceijOEVqU

And if that isn't the heart and soul of racism, then nothing is.

I would also urge you to re-read my post about the fundamental disagreement with the OP (#24)

There are a significant portion of people who are predominantly right brain thinkers (creative thinkers) that are literally unable to process people into monolithic singular groups as the OP asserts. For creative thinkers, racism isn't even possible. There are no neat boxes to put people in as left brain thinkers are able to do.

 For many left brain thinkers, those boxes must be constructed by right brain thinkers. It's highly unfortunate then that too many people find a profit in creating a world the polar opposite to the one MLK envisioned, and then teach those boxes to kids in school who don't know any better.

Oh no,  last I checked there are something like 62 genders, do I have to learn all the different racists now?  How many are there?

There are 482 types of racists by my calculations.

You probably internally discriminate as much as everyone else does.

I'm assuming that mere discrimination isn't the premise of Double_R's allegations but "racist chauvinism" which colloquially has been conflated with racism and its adjectival qualifiers (i.e. "racist.")

Though you may not be outwardly intolerant.

No, I'm outwardly intolerant.

Racism is a misused epithet.

It really is.

As someone who is not an evolutionist

I'll presume this position is based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, but that just isn't true. 

Well I guess it depends on what you think is the Christian Faith.  And it also depends upon what evolution is as well. Many of the different sciences you lay out below are not dependent upon evolution in the manner by which Darwin posited it.  Although you state it is a unifying theory - you are simply incorrect. 

Perhaps however before we continue that aspect of our discussion, you might provide a definition of what you think the Christian Faith is and also what you define as the theory of evolution.  I suspect that your presumption of contrived presumption won't stack up. Still, I will await you definitions to see whether they match or not. 

What you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Not at all. It really is going to depend upon how broad or narrow your provided definition of the theory of evolution is going to be.  We need to see what you think are the basic tenets of Christianity are before we can draw such a conclusion. 

But it is absolutely central to science.

Totally disagree. I perform scientific experiments of a sort everyday without using or applying evolution. 

The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.

Again we are going to have to see how broad or narrow your definition of evolution is. Change is not evolution. Adaption is not evolution. The maturing process is not evolution. Yes, I know evolutionists consider that these are part and parcel of evolution. Yet those opposed to evolution in its narrow definition believe that such things as change and adaption and the maturing process are able to be satisfactorily explained without the theory of evolution. 

Flat out denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences, you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, nobody claims it is complete. If you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.

It appears that you take a very broad definition of evolution.  Applying it to all sciences.  I never said the theory of evolution is non-scientific in this thread. I said I am not an evolutionists.  I can certainly propose that evolution defined narrowly is not related to any other aspect of science.  I disagree that the world of science is held together by evolution. That would be an atheistic position. And it couldn't be a religious one held by someone who holds to the tenets of Christianity. 

And I just don't see why anyone would want to do that. I simply do not see evolution challenging any of the basic tenets of Christianity; unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about your contention here. In order to support the belief that evolution is false, you accordingly have to postulate a deceptive God, don't you?

Yes, you have said that and are now repeating yourself.  At least in the first part of that paragraph. Your final sentence presumes much without any evidence to support the same. Let's see what your definitions are and then perhaps we might be able to discuss this properly. 

You would need to propose a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age with the overwhelming evidence of "evolution" occurring in creation as a trick or something. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.

I disagree.  There is are many different topics that could be explored in that paragraph.  But let's start by you - defining and providing the basis of Christianity - and for the theory of definition and then we can go from there. Thanks by the way for your response.  

As someone who is not an evolutionist

Nah, I just find it funny how much you guys keep drinking the Biden koolaid as if it is any different.

MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, she is a hypocrite, and wants to be called a "doctor" even though she says she isn't one, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”

Gotta say, this is the most elaborate ad hominem I have seen on the internet in text form.

Didn't Hunter Biden recently sell a painting for 500K? Trump is soo far behind in the con game.

I suppose it's not as classy as the Clinton Foundation :D

Or the 400K per Obama speeches.

https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

99 dollars seems like a steal!

Literally every single post of this OP is democrat hackery, low brow left-wing mastrubatory spam and other mindless bile. 

OP: do you just sit around all day copying and pasting the shit AOC tweets?  

You were twelve when he said that, try harder and I'll bet you can find things he said before you were born to be upset about.  

You were nine when Trump ran, probably not old enough to follow the news at that time but trust us, if you want to compare broken campaign promises between Trump and Biden you are going to look like an idiot.  

Again, when did I say I want to compare broken campaign promises?

I made a small comment referring to Biden not keeping his promises. I did not compare him to Trump. In fact, I did not even bring up Trump on this forum.

It was in fact, Double_R, who was the one who started the comparison between the two:

The previous president's signature campaign promise was that he would build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. He didn't build it and Mexico sure as hell didn't pay for it, yet I somehow missed your thread on that.

All candidates make promises there's no way they can keep. That's what happens when you have an electorate thoroughly ignorant on how our government works and instead thinks presidents are kings. Any candidate who honestly tells the voters what they wouldn't be able to accomplish because congress would never pass it wouldn't get elected.

And the fact about my age. 

Yes I am young, and I was even younger when all of this took place. But does justify the argument that I can't have a say in this, because I was too young to understand it?

No. People on this Forum, including yourselves, argue a lot about history. Should it be said that you weren't even born then, so you don't understand? 

No.

Campaign Press Release - Joe Biden Would Destroy American Energy Dominance | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

"BIDEN HAS PLEDGED THAT FOSSIL FUELS AND FRACKING WOULD BE "ELIMINATED" IF HE IS PRESIDENT
In July 2019, Biden Said That There Would Be No Place For Fossil Fuels And Fracking In A Biden Administration, Saying "We Would Make Sure It's Eliminated." DANA BASH: "Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?" JOE BIDEN: "No, we would -- we would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either -- any fossil fuel.""

His words not mine. 

imagine the losers that like this guy for President 

There was a time when veritably crazy people were promoted as shamans in the tribe.

How does a lack of knowledge constitute proof of a higher being again?

How else would you explain it?

There must be something that has intellect of some sort to create all of this.

It is your choice to perceive what you want to perceive, but based off of historical evidence, I chose to believe that the creator of the universe is God.

And people like Brother D. can misinterpret scripture, and use name calling as a way of arguing, but in the end, it is the actual evidence that matters.

What caused that infinitely hot and dense single point to come into existence?

What caused time to start?

And if no one can answer that, then there is proof of "a" higher being of some sort. 

You keep making these claims that it never happened, yet you have yet to show me a shred of evidence that it hasn't happened.

Someone told those police to stand down. I want to know who did that.

No, they didn't use pepperballs and tear gas....they used stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs...oh yeah, and pipe bombs.  

That's my point though. Who authorized police to not use pepperball and tear gas on what was suppossed to be the most violent mob in all of American History?

The Jan 6 committee never asked nor answered that.

Hopefully in 2023 someone in Congress will.

The police were defending themselves and the politicians they came to kill, and it's clear the police showed more restraint with this mob, not less (probably because the President sent them.  If that had been a Black Lives Matter protest that attacked the Capital, they wouldn't have made it to the capital steps, there would have been hundreds of dead bodies everywhere. 

As far as I can see on a lot of available footage, pepperballs and tear gas were not used much on Jan 6. Correct?

The problem with a functional definition is that it implies degrees of personhood, are children and mentally disabled adults less of a person?  It also would extend personhood to other species such as Great Apes, dolphins, and elephants for instance, perhaps even some AI programs meet the qualifications of personhood.

Much of my point is that personhood should be considered for other intelligent species, even if the form differs from our own. The Transatlantic Slave Trade was deplorable, as was the Three-fifths Compromise. We should strive to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

While I don't believe a dog or a cow should be classified as a person, I don't see an issue with classifying an elephant as one.

The question of personhood is a matter of assigning rights and duties, legally,  children are considered to have a lower degree of personhood, they have legal protections of personhood, you can't kill them, but they also have fewer rights than an adult.  

While there's plenty of crossover, that sounds more like the distinction of citizenship. Even a foreign child is protected from harm, but by default will never have the voting privileges.

The big legal question of personhood is in the abortion debate of course, and a functional definition like this just doesn't  provide any guidance to temporal  demarcation. Including the "potential" for these functional developments makes some sense but still gives no guidance for at what point in time that potential applies, and including "potential" further complicates the demarcation between species and AI.  

IMO AIs at a certain point should be both people, and (if contributing to society) citizens. Heck, corporations are already considered people for legal purposes.

As for abortion: I don't believe there is anything special about human DNA if not connected to a mind. If we grow brainless human husks for organ harvesting, I don't see any moral issue as no harm is experienced by any being even capable of awareness.

Take the old trolly problem of saving embryos or a smaller number of actual children: the choice to save the children is universal, because they're people, even while both groups are human.

What would you have had them do?

Maybe get the same treatment other violent protests got? Teargas, flashbangs? Shooting pepperballs?

I recall that was used to clear out the less than peaceful protesters out of Lafayette square?

Oh yeah, Also not get waved in by the police like a slaughterhouse. Not being incited by FBI plants. That coulda helped.

Curious how other people believe it ought to be defined?

I personally believe it should reside with three pillars:

1. Significant recognizable intelligence,
   
2. Demonstratable sentience, and
   
3. Awareness of self.
   

While biology is the most common precursor we've seen for these, I do not believe that is ideal long term as a requirement. While it's a comedy, the movie Ted showcases the horrors to which a human standard leads (intelligent sentient beings who are aware of themselves, being kidnapped, mutilated, and murdered without any legal protections).

A potential drawback to my definition, is a lack of an empathy requirement. Narcissistic assholes are still people, even if we would rather they not be.

firing metal bullets into a crowd is with an intent to kill

You say that like it's a bad thing?

You guys do realize that there's a difference between indiscriminate fire into a crowd and firing at the one person breaking in through a window?

firing metal bullets into a crowd is with an intent to kill

Do you support the government shooting into a crowd of people with the intent to kill?

Pretty sure it's open season on anyone if you happen to be in a crowd and the government opens fire.

Enjoy the dystopia. 

How about if the situation was reversed...

You mean if Trump ordered the police to fire metal bullets into a crowd? Well, maybe he could get away with it if he paid the media enough to spin a good yarn about it.

As for putting up signs saying trespassers will be shot.

Well, I have no knowledge of Federal or State trespass laws.

There's no sign like that in the Capitol, yet it didn't stop armed government guards from firing metal bullets into a crowd.

Who should we vote for?

There's only 2 ways I know of to do that. 2/3 majority of Congress or armed revolt.

Did Trump decide which path?

Why do you doubt the evidence of you’re own eyes?

By beyond labels, do you mean like words, you want me to draw you a picture or something?  Sorry, to communicate I'm gonna stick with using language, my objections are "tangible" as presented.  

- "white supremacist" "racist" "antisemite"...etc, are just labels, charged with the right amount of emotion to antagonize & dehumanize others with no actual cause.

You must show first that the act is objectionable, & for what reason it is objectionable, & that it was actually committed. 

That's OK, Trump's not going to be on any ballot in Turkey any time soon anyway.

- Maybe he can become Erdogan's adviser.

Trump exacerbated the divisiveness, especially for Muslims, and yes, our internecine strife is more political than ever before,

- You have it backwards. It's the boiling real divisiveness in the country that led to Trump.

This is why a secular egalitarian democracy is doomed to fail. Imposing a single mold of thought & practice on all people may in the short term create a fake harmony with diversity of appearance, but it will inevitably collapse on itself. People are not robots, they are diverse, not just in skin color & gender, but more importantly in their ways of thinking, their values, their beliefs...etc. A secular democracy is not equipped to deal with that kind of diversity, of beliefs & practices.

but it's simple bigotry to define people using labels like you do...and

- The wisdom is not in the label, it's in the meaning. Meanings are natural universals (abstracts) extracted from the real world. A dog in the real world, is represented in our mind with the concept of dog. This is meaning. Words are conventional sounds or letters to refer to those meanings. Hence, words are contingent on meanings, not the opposite. When the conventional meaning of the word expresses a real distinction in the world, then the word has real meaning. –

The issue arises when using labels (words) to designate fictitious things which have no substance or bear no real distinction in the real world. 

Yes, the way you see the system is f*cked, it's going to just keep getting worse until we stop seeing labels and start seeing individuals.

- People are not individuals, they are individuals of a society. What you're promoting to avoid a society made of some groups is a society made of millions of them, i.e. individuals. A society of lone individuals is the most divided & most vulnerable that could possibly exist, perfectly & utterly at the mercy of the state & the enemy. 

I disapprove of Fuentes because he’s a white supremacist and go figure, but I have a problem with antisemitism, racism, and hatemongering.

Trump is all that and more, he’s a lawless, sociopathic autocrat with a movement that is attacking the very foundations of my country’s democracy and freedoms.  He has undermined the institutions that are foundational to our government and spread divisiveness and hatred. 

- I see that happening from all sides. Do you have any tangible objections to his ideas beyond labels?

I suppose I should have also mentioned Trump's Islamophobia.

"I think Islam hates us." - Donald Trump in 2016

- That was a funny one. I am not on any of your sides. It's all the same to me.

Democrats don't accept Muslims, or in fact any group. They accept only liberals who happen to be Muslim, or among another group. Republicans don't accept Muslims in general. Things are changing lately though... It's not about Trump or Schrump, the system itself is f*cked. 

Genius, Sharia and Islam are more right wing and mistreating of other races and cultures vs the majority in their own nations than any white christian nation you can name right now, so if you're gonna go there, you're pretty dumb.

Tell me something, do you think Muslims are closer to Trump's politics or yours?

Think very carefully before throwing out 'phobic' when you don't know what is feared. In fact to be saying such nonsense in 2022 December given what is finally being exposed in Qatar and Iran recently, is sheer ignorance. That is Islam, it's always been Islam.

You have given one of the only fully relevant responses in the entire thread. Unfortunately, Yassine will now derail his own thread in an attempt to promote Sharia law.

Nick Fuentes holds a leadership position in the Trump movement, last seen at a campaign strategy session with Trump a week after declaring his run for 2024. 

He's an important figure in the Trump movement, with prominant positions on several of Trumps new cabinet committess, insurrection conspiracy, anti-semitism (of course), domestic divisiveness, and most imporant, he's is a essential figure of Trump's white supremacist coalition. 

- I take it you disapprove of him, & of Trump. Why exactly do you disapprove?

zero-volume tetrahedron = null geodesics/singularity, as Penrose proved the latter part.

when the 3D --tetrahedron--- vanishes it to null geodesic singularity, it did not truly vanish,--as the graphic shows---  but the VE appeared as the tet vanished ergo, occupied space does not vanish in black holes. or elsewhere.

Finite, occupied space Universe is eternally existent.   Naught is ever/eternally created nor destroyed.

You've followed Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Universe { CCU } scenarios, yes?

Ive had two cosmological scenarios of eternally existent Universe, long before I read his CCU scenario.

ER and ERP are mathematical resultants of Einstein, Rosen and subseuently Podosky via general relativety if I understand correctly.

In subequently 1965 R penrose wrote on page paper proving Einsteins GR correct regarding formation of black hole, singularity {  null geodesic } and subsequently, in 2018 won nobel prize for that proof.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Along come Suskind Malcedona's conclusion, that, like what is known with classical particles being entangled, that black holes also are entangled --ergo duality of ER = ERP--  and via  a holographic mechanism, --along with another classical mechanism 'negative energy'? charging the wormhole---  there can be transfer of information { positive Linus Q-bit } between the the black holes. Linus is in Susskinds other vid explanning these events.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My geometric, and incomplete version of the above, involves Fullers Synergetic geometry idea of zero-volume tetrahedron  LINK  and subsequently a cubo-octahedron aka Vector Equlibrium{ VE } being a black hole. In the following LINK we find Fullers spherical VE being created and by its four, independent hexagonal planes and this leads to equlibrium of chords >< radii i.e. 24 chords >< 24 radii.

I see the holographic positive Linus Qbit as one of the of these four, identical and equlibrious { 6 chords >< 6 radii }---  hexagons, as shown in the LINK

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

For more on my ideas, of the similar vein, see my Quantum Entanglement via Hexa-god ideas ---still naive explorations---  in this LINK human brain and torus.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate31.html

I think it is best to think of each of Fullers 2D great circles LINK as 3D, vectorial tori. So the above single hexagon is a torus, that infolds --to some degree-- upon itself.  What Ive not yet given much thought, is how the radii are incorporated into the 3D torus idea, at least when only considering a single particle or black hole or other. Originally I thought of the each of the six radii being one section of six other tori, in addition to thecurved 6 chords { great circle } as one tori.

Your just mad. 

Just make sure not to be a crybaby about it ok?

Express

Centralized anything is bad.

I want a dinning.