fauxlaw

Please note my #53 to Ramshutu.

Careful. I are one.

Well, used to be, until I saw the writing on the wall that the state was going stupid.

You haven't been reading, and I will not repeat myself.

1. I have offered the detailed means of how to use faith. That you resist is on you.

2. See #1. These means must be put to trial be each individual. It cannot be done for them.

3. See #1, and #2. Just do it. As I've said, I cannot demonstrate it for you. Don't be a stubborn horse. Just drink the water.

don't you have a debate argument to post? I'm already on round 3.  My practice: I don 't challenge a debate without having at least two rounds of argument already prepared; usually more. And I anticipate arguments from opponents and prepare rebuttals prior to their need so I'm ready for them in advance. It's a good practice.

One of the best definitions of faith ever offered. Evidence. 

Spot on!

As if Gavin Nusom has a brain cell in his head. The AR-15 is not used in US military. Who, to date, has offered a definition of "assault weapon?" Isn't that necessary before the term is used in any legislation?

What's curious is that you offer a definition for denial, and then you claim it is identical to faith's definition, without evidence to support your opinion. I'll take it as such and stop asking you. You obviously will not demonstrate your error. Here is the perfect example of why one can drag a horse to water, but compelling it to drink is entirely the horse's decision. So, don't drink. Faith is a curious manifestation because only by each person's trial of its power can its power to lead to truth be felt for themselves; there is no way to demonstrate that for another. 

Show me the source of that claim, that faith is denial. I do not accept your credentials in this regard.

The woodchuck’s teeth wear by inverse proportion to the increase in chucked wood.

I know heart and brain surgeons who disagree that faith has naught to do with medicine. You had it right the first time,  faith is like any other action, not restricted to religion. Faith is a powerful tool to enhance our body of knowledge in science.

I cannot help that you insist on limiting your scope of what faith is, and the power it holds. Argue for your limitations; they’re yours. I do not share them. No, you are not going to obtain the evidence you demand by mere belief, and equating belief to faith, and using your five senses as evidence.  That is what you have been told your whole life. You are going to believe that just because it is what you are told?

Why must it be one or the other? Both may be in play. I certainly think so.

You are describing attributes belonging to belief, not faith.  Many in the world think faith and belief are synonymous. No, they are not, but one must feel the results of real faith, and it’s power, to finally understand the distinction.

You trifle with things you do not understand, a dangerous attitude. I'm serious. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true. It, therefore, comprises a six sense. Would you deny the five with which you are familiar? Do you deny these five mostly exist in other animals? Do you deny the ability of some animals to echolocate, and others to sense the Earth's magnetic field? To sense where blood vessels are in other animals with precision, though they are not seen? Then, why not faith for man? Argue for your limitations; they're yours, and only you can rid yourself of them. AS I've said, doubt and denial are faith killers. If children can learn how to exercise it, and they do, anyone can.

Look, people, I get all the arguments that carrying a solar panel rolled in a backpack is easier to cary than batteries. 

My argument has been from the beginning that, during the day, which is when most troops are mobile, getting from A to B, the solar panels are rolled up in their backpacks, and, therefore, are not deployed to collect sunlight. Therefore, when the company arrives at B, if it's still daylight, they can deploy and gather sunlight for a brief period until the sun sets. If that's a short amount of time, without an added battery pack [which must also be carried] to store the sunlight-gathered power, that solar panel will not collect star or moonlight and will not produce wattage to use. It's dead. So, why deploy it at night? They won't, but they also have no power. One way or another, they're still carrying batteries unless they hike at night and camp during the day. 

I have a 39-panel array on my roof; I get how solar panels work, and also why they don't at night, but somebody has a disconnect.

Obviously, yes, I get that. But, what good does a solar panel serve rolled up in a backpack, during the day? Not a bloody watt is going to be drawn from a rolled solar panel when it is needed and deployed at night. Does no one get that? Seems more than Kammie are dim bulbs.

@RM

Thanks. Yes, I understand oromagi is sidestepping my argument to bolster his own. 

You still don't get it. Statistics is a science. There is empiric evidence behind it. I do not have sufficient medical knowledge to prove my point. All I'm saying is that Turban's dependence on his statistical references is flawed because the statistics he cites have gathering methods and results that are flawed. He either needs a more accurate statistical study, by the empiric methods statistical gather and analysis demands, or he needs other justification, and so do you.

What makes statistical analysis, which Dr. Turban attempts to do, suddenly non-sequitur? Because you can't do it, either? Not your expertise? Sorry, that's on you and Dr. Turban.

When have I called transgenders unpopular? You just did, but I've never said it. 

That is a claim right out of bitterness because you do not share my opinion. I've merely offered an opinion; I'm not saying I have science behind it. Why must I mount a statistical study in a field in which I have no particular interest or expertise? I'm not a medical doctor, and you're not qualified to certify me as such.  Since Dr. Turban is interested in an agenda, it is his responsibility to secure a competent statistical expertise - hire it himself, and not use someone else's flawed studies. I have no stake in the game.

I've said I'm on the side of statistical science, and I'll call out flaws when I see them in that science. That's all.

I agree, Dr. Turban has excellent medical credentials. What he lacks are credentials in statistical data gathering and analysis. Since his medical decisions, in this case, are based upon flawed statistics, he needs to find other justification for his opinions. He is using stat analyses that violate the most basic of standards of statistical science. Being a credentialed expert in this field, I recognize these flaws immediately when given the opportunity to see the data behind the analyses. You don't just organize a series of questions [and of particular important is to avoid bias in the questions - but who would know that if they do not understand statistical science?] and select a haphazard sample size of respondents, which is usually too small for statistical accuracy [but who would know that if they do not understand statistical science?], and you don 't play with margins of error haphazardly [but who would know that if they do not understand statistical science?].

@RM

I am pleased when we find intersections of agreement. It's enough for me. Good advice to Edge, and kudos to you

Good advice from RM. I concur. A rest will do you good. A bientot

There is an element you obviously miss in the verbiage of the definition of faith as given in Hebrews. For faith to yield evidence that is unseen to the unbelievers, the hope, the faith necessary must be invested in things which are true. That is the payoff of faith verses belief. Faith only operates in things which are already true, but not known, not understood, not seen. If I tried the intent of applying faith to a notion that the sun rises in the west, my efforts would fail because it is not true.  That is the true test of faith; it will always yield that which is only true. Therefore, can I find out for myself that God exists? Yes, and I have. You ask me to prove it, I reply that you must do as I did, and many others, to realize it is true. If you don't want to go through the effort, it is not going to be handed to you on a silver platter. 

In other words, what some Christians will tell you, that works are not necessary to perform, that the grace of Christ, and the recognition of it is all that needs to be expressed. Hogwah. Faith demands work, otherwise this would be an easy exercise to only believe. And plenty of people are satisfied with that weak effort. People don't like to be told they must work for something. It is otherwise called entitlement. Nope, not how God works [yeah, he does, too.]

I'll have more later, but for now, while your cited S-A source is a medical doctor, and has a masters in child psychology, he cites statistical data, even doing a stat study of his own, but Dr. Jack Turban is no statistician, and hasn't the slightest clue of the necessities of that science. His methods are elementary, his results are faulty as a result, and he  does not offer [nor do his sources offer] a hint at the raw data collected and by what questions it was obtained. Until that raw data reporting is done, everything he says is suspect, because statistics demands that such detail be offered for legitimate peer review; not for the medical science he claims, but for the statistical accuracy of the claims based on those statistics. For example, one study of a survey he uses as support indicates a margin of error whose range is larger than his alleged supporting data will qualify the data as accurate. Turban does not even realize the inaccuracy of the data as a result, because you don't ask a medical doctor to conduct a statistical study. Pure and simple hogwash is the result. Unfortunately, statistics is much more than stringing questions and analyzing the answers.

Oh, another study he cites, [actually, at least two of them] do not have a statistically valid sample size of respondents to legitimize the study results - another classic error made by non-statisticians assuming they know how statistical studies are conducted. Again, hogwash results. Being a non-statistician yourself, I don't wonder you believe the results, just because a "scientist" reports it. Not a scientist in the right field. I certainly would not go to Dr. Jack to ask him if it is legal for me to practice medicine, based on the alleged statistics that that say I should be able to do so with the appropriate knowledge. Certification? What's that?

You offer a secular, dictionary definition of faith.  From Hebrews 11: 1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  There is a far greater power involved here than mere belief, but I don'r expect a secularist to understand a thing about that. Belief compels no one to do anything about it. Faith, on the other hand, does require action. by virtue of the first items described; something hoped for. One cannot hope for something with acting on it to achieve it. That is the distinction between wishing for something and hoping for it. By the work performed to realize the hope, realize the evidence, that is, to present "unseen," as something achieved in seeing. Wishing will never accomplish that, and mere belief, if more is not applied, will never accomplish it. Doubt all you like. Even a young child can accomplish this. They just need to be taught how it is done and they can do it, themselves.  You could, too, but doubt can have no purchase on your effort. And you will never know until you try it, with real intent. 

I will argue that your S-A source provided in your #22 makes the claim that "There is no scientific case for excluding them" [Article: Trans Girls Belong on Sports Teams"], but, curiously, no linkage in the article provides any scientific case for including trans girls. Shouldn't there be, if the article writer makes the claim? Sorry, but the section header of your article tells all: "Policy/Ethics." Since when is either considered as science? Both are parties to politics, but not science. 

Your article says, 

as you have cited. However, the problem extends beyond sports to a general discrimination of females that is the bane of worldwide concerns in business, politics, education, and just about everything else without a science supporting the discrimination.

I won't dignify that with a direct comment. The point is, Joseph, other than being mentioned as being espoused [engaged in our syntax] to

Mary, is not mentioned in Luke 1, and hearing nothing, was most likely in another house at the time. 

Is the contributor of sperm to a recipient of artificial insemination always married to the recipient? There are other means of pregnancy than coitus, or weren’t you taught that in your elementary porn education?

Do you ignore, then, the prudence of teaching a child what faith is, and how it works? Faith is not synonymous with belief, nor religion. Faith is a concept of how to determine what ideas are true and that which is not true. A child can learn and apply that much. In fact, they can do it more easily than can adults.

Wrong question. I don't doubt that if anyone is asked if they are anything that is not praiseworthy, they're likely to deny it. I said, ask them if they are Christian. If someone acknowledge's the Christ as Savior and Redeemer, I respect that declaration, even if there are doctrinal differences between us. I don't acknowledge the Nicene Creed as interpreted, but then the Nicene Creed says nothing of the interpretation that Christ occupies the seat of the throne with God the Father as his equal, because Christ's sonship will always hold that relationship as a literal Son of God, even in the flesh. The Creed acknowledges that Christ is seated at God's right hand, a righteous, but subservient position. Christ, too, worships God the Father, and always will as his Son..

No, because race, as a biological variance, is virtually non-existent; a social construct. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

I understand specifically what my source was, and the reason why the ratios are so much smaller than yours. Yours includes those who think their gender. People can think whatever they like, and with or without the American franchise, the thinking ought to include sports competition with like-thinking people

I did not ignore your post at all. You are making claims about children without the benefit of personal experience, or you would have replied with that experience. Are you not finished growing up, yourself [your profile is categorically unknown on the subject, which speaks for itself].

@stephen

You are still missing the logic. I am not advocating the the proposition is true, but Underdog is, thus his departure. I am asking, for him, what if the proposition is false?

I will note that the Nicene Creed offers one view of the trinity, but it curiously was not called the Christian Creed, was it?  Why not?

@stephen

I am making argument from Underdog’s perspective; not my own. That I happen to believe the arguments without the “if” would be relevant to understand.

@stephen

Did I mention one word about religion or God, or whatever else doesn't float your boat? One-track mind. Bitch, bitch, bitch. 

Are you even around small children enough to know what thoughts they have, on their own? Apparently not. Prepare to be shocked.

@stephen

What I'm saying, people like you, is that you do nothing but complain. So complain if that floats your boat. It ain't my boat. Sorry about yours.

I think what Kammie was missing is while carrying a rolled up solar panel, during the day, it is not deployed for use. What will it collect at night? Starlight?

Who cares where marines are? The fact is, which Kammie missed, is that a solar panel rolled up in a backpack is as useless as a dead battery. Got to take it out in sunlight, and then it must be connected to whatever it is supplying power. While that marine is hiking along with the rest of the company?  Sure. 

Wiki. Such a valuable source. Well, your source's source for that 1:58 ratio is the U.N., not exactly what I would call unbiased science. Your valid number of physically sexual ambiguity is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/, which places that ratio at 1:2000 to 1:4500. Come on, let's deal with science instead of agenda.

How many sports are competitions of single individuals, or pairs? 

@ Stephen

Re: your #101, once again, Stephen is cherry picking, not "understanding" that one must read with intent to understand more than a single verse, which is all I have been saying to you since you started criticizing me, nearly a year ago. We cannot cheery pick and expect to understand. Your citation of Luke 14, for example. You pull verse 24 out of the mix, ignoring that Jesus speaks not of himself, directly, but is telling a parable in which the lord of a manor speaks, wanting to have people attend his feast, but all have excuses why they cannot come, just as many people ignore Christ. It's another story we may know better as the littler red hen. Probably that fable was based on this very parable, for it tells of the same consequences. All the farm animals are unwilling to assist in preparation of making a loaf of bread, or a cake, whatever, but everyone wants to eat it when it is baked.  Oh, it is certain that the lord of the manor represents Christ in the parable, but only by context does one see that the real ignorant people are those who will not abide by the invitation to come to the lord's table. He's not even asking for assistance in preparation of the meal, in this case, but, they still refuse. People like you, Stephen, always finding excuses why this or that is too much to accept. Jesus is saying that even if that invitation is extended to one who is inclined to attend, but his parents, his brother, whomever, impose on him to stay away, better that the person shun his parents than not attend the supper of the Lord God. All you see is hate for hate's sake, and not what an alternative choice would be.

Absurd interptetation

I suspect being on site for 30 days means one has emptied their backpack. No, Kammie is clearly talking about being on the move, thus, her incompetence on display.

Never encountered such a glutton for punishment of poor logic.

Fine:

Your P2 is false, once again, because your claim, now, violates Article VI of the Constitution, and, obviously has since the Constitution was ratified just a few years ago. You may not realize that making such a claim, yu arer, on fact, claiming sovereign citizenship, which is also illegal.

Since any one of the propositions, being false, fails the logic, your "syllogism" isn't, so it fails.

I am aware. But, aren't the panels a but useless if rolled up?