fauxlaw

Wish y'all could lift my prohibition from entering debate argument in debate...

I don't look like [I'm not black; although my frog is], but I sound like James Earl Jones.

But that is Alexei, comrade.

How do you figure? If someone wants to break into my house, and do so with nothing  but a karate studio education, I can take him out from across the room. How is that tyranny and slavery? No, that's just stupid, and not on me. Got to assume anymore that it's a gunfight, boyo. But at 7,500 feet elevation in a mountain forest on 10 acres, in a stone fortress, I figure even finding my house is a chore not easily achieved. And even if it comes to that, I've had that martial education, too. I'm no Bruce Lee, but I am a big-boned 6'3" 210 lbs, not tossed like a rag doll

I continue to be amused that many Democrats think guns are fearful objects even if just tucked in a pocket or purse. It's just a tool with no useful purpose of its own volition, so, why are they so afraid of it? They're the ones who claim a superior eduction, yet on this matter, they've tossed that out the window, even when their belief is a myth. That's what blue-state eduction is: a myth.

Every single blue state in existence has been a red state, and will be again, and vice versa. 

Considering that about 1M abortions per year since 1973 [the launch of Roe v Wade] that's about 50M potential voters lost, about 1/3 of which would vote Democrat, I'll wager Kamycakes wishes she had those votes, even considering that only about half of them would bother to vote.

The only appropriate response to a political poll, which are patently worthless, is: it's possible.

hostage culture is next to postal culture

I much prefer to see an argument's guide to idiots

I am and have been my boss [except for my bride] for over twenty years.

The debate between LucyStarfire  and Wylted on the better photo is very recreational.

i entirely agree with your commentary of "perpetual creation" and evolution along side it. I am hearing allusion to the Scopes trial in TN in 1925 that found in favor of silencing education of evolution, and maintaining the legality of the Butler Act. I've always been intrigued by a later trial in the TN Supreme Court that overturned the Scopes trial, nd yet held that the Butler Act renin in effect until 1967, but remains a matter of debate today. 

However, I entirely disagree with the closing argument in your post. That conclusion is, frankly, supportive of only a shallow read of scripture. It is far deeper that you allege, thigh I am aware that many people do poor research into it, and arrive at the same conclusion. That is why I investigate Greek [in which I have formal eduction] ad Hebrew [which I am learning on my own], biblical texts to gain greater understanding. I recognize that most people have neither the time nor inclination to do so, but, as a result, conclude the scriptures lack knowledge. Sorry to make a personal accusation, for I value your commentary valuable and mostly on point, but not in this specific regard. plus, I there to the idea of continued revelation from God in our day, thus, having addiotnal scripture not had by the average Christian. Sorry, but I think it arrogance that many think God stopped talking to us with Biblical scripture.

That violates your own declaration that one cannot claim that which does not exist, which is also your claim.

It's not rocket science. It's not even complictes human behavior.

"The provoked attack by Iran against both Israel and the U.S. since 1979 is frequent and deserving of response."

- me. Any questions? Still feeling ironic?

Your #17, line 4 is not a know fact, and I suspect indifference and cruelty are not the only necessary conclusions of evolutionary competition. Direct involvement and joy of service may be natural consequences, and thy could, as a result, produce a benevolent god that came, saw, seeded, and remained in contact to observe results because it is his nature to not just observe, but interact, encourage, and love over 4 billion years.

I claim that the order of the planets of the Sun is listed incorrectly.

I claim there is no history; there is only now.

I claim I do not exist.

What do you make of your #16?

Your # 2:

MyCaesar's #3 explained it by your generalization, which clearly has the reader assuming you mean all, not some, and you actually say "all immigrants" when that is not the case. It should be said "some immigrants," specifically,  if only because we do have immigrants who enter the country legally, but it's not even just that. However, to say not all illegal immigrants are not criminals, they are all criminals because it is illegal just to cross the border without checking in with border patrol to verify their legal right to be here, such as with a visa or a green card. Criminal is criminal, I don't care what JoeBiden thinks, because he usually doesn't. [Note I said, "usually" which does not imply "always," does it? See how important such qualifiers are?

Well said. Have to agree.

I should have read your # 6 before posting my #7, because yours is eloquent. Well done.

And that's a much of a myth as the left wing claim of Trump being a Putin puppet.

Face it, everyone generalizes to make a point, making the point only a point of absurdity.

Joyless Behar has nothing on Melania relative to consideration of men. She says of her 2nd husband, “I met my husband at a semi-nudist colony. It’s true... He was naked, I was not. Because for a man to see me naked, I have to be in his will." https://people.com/who-is-steve-janowitz-joy-behar-husband-7565737
Yeah, for all her useless mouth, a willow sapling of a backbone.

a pair of maybes. credibiliilty disjunction.

The little pistachio is literally a miracle in a tiny shell on a tree. It has so may properties that can increase health, wealth, and sex. Not a bad combination, all things considered.There are not that many food sources that can provide all of the following just  by the consumption of a single ounce [about 49 nuts in the shell - but don't eat the shell.

What it can do:

1. Nutrition:carbs, protein, fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fat, potassium, phosphorus, manganese, thiamine, copper, Vit, B6 [blood sugar regulation, formation of hemoglobin]]

2. Hi-antioxidants for cancer prevention and lutwin [eyes]

3. lo-cal, hi protein, essential amino acids

4. weight loss

5. provision of good gut bacteria

6. reduce cholesterol and blood pressure

7. vascular function, including erectile disfunction prevention

8. reduce blood sugar [diabetes prevention]

9. sleep aid: contains melatonin, tryptophan, and magnesium

10. aids libido [one result of #7, and has aphrodisiac properties.

Your post and your citation are both typical progressive manipulation of history [iow, fantasy] to serve a purpose to an equally manipulated point. You're going to stand on that? Might as well try to balance a medicine ball on your nose [stuck in the air, of course]. You really want to be imaged in that pose? Just another model? Your choice, entirely. I'm just reminding of the probable consequence of address by others.

But your #14 did not say that, did it? You made an assumption. Say what you mean, not some prattled nonsense to which some can take offense. The freedom of speech does allow for causing offense, but it does not mean you're allowed free gratis to its use without expecting repercussions.

Yeah, the AofC were a comedy routine. They're a mutual admiration society of perpetual innocence of the idiot variety. Something happened between their development and the Constitution, and I suspect  much of that was in the person of James Madison, because while he participated in the debate resulting in the AofC, he rallied against much of what its result was, and was an advocate championing their replacement by a Constitution. My admiration of Jimmy Madison is boundless.

Your #98 is nonsense. You don't know that, either, do you?  You may believe that, but belief is weak compared to true knowledge, and belief can also support absurd fantasy. It is not a dependable source. Leave it at that.

Nationality has naught to do with either racial or national prejudice. I understood that as a pre-adolescent, but, then, I grew up in L.A.. a true melting pot where I grew appreciating and celebrating our differences as if sitting at one grand table where we sit together, and where all foods are enjoyed, all laws respected, all hands joined, all cultures and colors embraced, and all deities honored. What else could we ever want or need? But you go ahead with your monochrome-set blindness.

Agreed, and what I find curious is that advocates of socialized medicine European-style in America ignore that we re the third most populated nation in the world behind India and China, and that such a medical system here cannot function as it does in Europe because those are all small pwpulations comped to ours. We simply cannot afford it on a per capita basis and come anywhere close to it being the equivalent for all. We need much more Democrat euthanasia techniques, like the Covid virus, to make S.M. work here, but, somehow, that seems to fly in the face of the Hippocratic oath; "first, do no harm."

Re: your #14, a curious commentary considering your avatar... which I take to be stark monochrome, eh?

Re: your #9: so, how long ago were you 18? For me, 56 years ago. Planned Parenthood has been around since 1916, and has changed its stripes since then. Obviously, even within your lifetime, based on your observation & experience with them,  it has changed its stripes, because it is now all-in on abortion. Created by Margaret Sanger, who was, objectively, a practitioner of eugenics, which effectively was a sample of scientific racism, Planned Parenthood has come full circle back to the embrace of the Malthusian theory of overpopulation, which is, itself, discredited nonsense, even now in most rational circles.

The law does not claim to be perfect, mainly because our civil law is ours, not God's. However, we have an out: we have codified the means to change and improve imperfections in our civil law. We also, unfortunately, codify the ability to make changes in law that take us retrograde, such as Roe.

re: your #4: a good summary, and I agree. Yes, the SCOTUS syllabus in Medina v. Planned Parenthood does not mention the post 6-week stuff, but that is current State law, with a few exceptions, but none that deter the SCOTUS decision today. That's what I should have said. Thanks for the reminder.

Law is codified morality.

Not if you don't claim it, that's true.

Is it? I suppose one might say a balloon is a balloon whether filled with air or flat and flacid. But I think things are defined, first, by purpose, and flat is not the designed purpose of a balloon. Same goes for us. We were not designed, in my book, to be indifferent and cruel to one another, but to follow the vice of Christ to love even our enemies. Hard bargain, but doable.

I have to stop right there. I do not understand blaming God for our suffering. 99.9% of our suffering is our doing, not his. But then, one must believe in free will and not a deterministic universe that God, or a sentient universe, run everything, cause everything, and appear malevolent about it. I do not buy that philosophy for a second. While many believe, if they even believe in God, that he is the cause of everything, I believe his creation was his cause, but he gave us agency to act for ourselves, and that, therefore, he may not be the cause of anything thereafter. We become cause by our free will to do good or evil, and that our misfortunes belong, in the end, toourselves, or others around us, trying to impose their will on us, and we on them.

Re: your #2, I think conscience is that impression deep in us that chides us when, as adults, and parents, we yell at our kids when they do something we believe ought not be done, but then wonder what's up with our kids when they yell at us for doing the same thing. They learn from us and mimic us, and they are sponges when it comes to learning acceptable and unacceptable behavior. they see it in us and wonder why we haven't learned the lesson we try to teach them. Yelling is not a good teaching behavior. Conscience is the innate skill of recognizing the distinction of basic good and evil, the knowledge of which is essential for getting it right.

Re: your #2, I think the "Big Bang" is just a balloon and the inevitable needle, and not the alleged beginning of the universe at all. But, you may be correct that it is less frightening than the alternative that a sentient God is the creator with a purpose in mind for that universe: for us. That is where I put my trust in what is true.

#3: pets are family, and that's all that really need be said about the depth of that relationship. My condolences. I've been there.

THe Supreme Court found against Planned Parenthood today in South Carolina: In Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a SCOTUS 6-3 decision determined that abortion cannot be funded by Medicaid after 6 weeks beyond conception.

Does it call itself "Planned Parenthood" as a deliberate deception that it's primary aim in counseling potential parents that parenthood should not be their resolve? Isn't that what's called an oxymoron; emphasis on the latter two syllables? It's as dishonest as abortion advocates claiming that abortion is a reproductive right since abortion, by definition, does not result in reproduction? Doesn't anybody use a dictionary anymore?

In the US Constitution''s Preamble, Madison wrote of achieving "a more perfect union." Is it just a pipe dream, or is it actually achievable?

It's an either/or. Is repentance a turnstile by commission of the same sin over and over but without changing our habit, or abandonment of of evil if favor of righteousness?

There are strawman debates and forum topics created, such as abortion v. homosexuality, or illegal immigration v. slavery, which exist as fallacies of misrepresentations or exaggerations of an opponent's argument to assume advantage over that opponent rather than the proposition of debate and forum topics that truly represent district differences in approach to society's many problems. in the latter case, both proposals may be beneficial, but one may be more beneficial than another, and that is an argument that suits proper use of either formal debate, or open-season forum  topics that could be the norm of this site's endeavors.  It takes people more dedicated to the free exchange of ideas for the benefit of most or all the people rather than a petty argument between opponents whose aim is strictly to gain advantage over a weaker opponent by belittling the opponent more than making valid argument for their burden of proof. Thoughts? Is this a better site by the strawman approach, or honest, direct discussion of not necessarily opposing ideas [but they are valid, too], but ideas which may have superior results over others?

The core conflict arises from the question of whether our choices are genuinely our own by free will or are the inevitable outcomes of a prior, deterministic cause, maybe elven as far reaching as the “big bang.” Well, first of all, there is no balloon without a needle somewhere, so, there’s your b.b. origin. Beyond that, when you're thinking the determinism side, what makes you think what is suggested to your head, and not originating in it is credible, because, there is certainly a lot of chaos out ther? Whereas, when you're of the belief that you're not a lunatic, at least you ought to know by now your thinking is relatively sound.

Yes, I agree with your #7. I fit the paradigm you suggest. I was one month from my 25th birthday when I married. It is typical for men of my faith to return home from their missionary service from, in my day, 19 to 20 years of age, coming home at Christmas of 1970, to be married within the year. When. my Mission President in our final interview of my 2-year service suggested I go home and marry within the year, I knew the suggestion was coming and told him "I will marry when I find the best companion I can find. If that takes another ten years, then, so be it. I will not marry just to marry. I know who I am looking for, and will not interrupt my plan with the first woman I encounter unless she meets my list of ideals." "Sounds like you have a plan," he replied. The woman I found to whom I have  been married 53 years, met every expectation on my list, but one,  the last on the list. I wanted her to be musical [play an instrument]. My bride does not, but that turned out to be insignificant. She appreciates the same music I do, and that's fine. I'm a lucky guy.

I was with you all the way to this literal last line of your #3.

I don't think men have a clue to the stress level reached by delivery of a child. I though my kidney stones were the worst pain and stress I ever felt, but woman have them, too, and most I've spoken with about childbirth and kidney stones say the latter is a walk in the park by comparison. Having witnessed my wife in childbirth [and, fortunately for her, has never had kidney stones] but her stress in the former was off the chart. No, women's capacity to experience and sustain stress and pain is far superior to men.

There's a joke that when God was handing out relative responsibilities to Adam and Eve, and God described the necessary tasks of farming and husbandry [domestication and carer of animals], hunting, and so forth, and childbirth and primary care provider of children, Adam said, "I was created first, I'll take the farming and husbandry." He knew his design and endurance limitations.

However, as for feminism, I think that's just women who aren't up to the strength they have. That is buying into limitation. 

Corruption is the nature of the human condition, but it is not impossible to overwhelm with sufficient attention to it to keep the debate free oof the anger we tend to absorb and reflect, me along with everyone else. We can all do better if the commitment is there to try.

Well said. A very valuable construct of a successful debate site. Tht is, both recent comments, #97 and #99

Extension:

I personally question the purpose of the role of a president of the site. I think the lead moderator ought to fulfill that role, and is deserving of it, since the role ought to, at the least qualification,  have a clear, working knowledge of the set of policies ruling this site, whereas, the current occupier of the office of president, clearly does not have such understanding. I realize this suggestion violates the current policy description of presidential qualifications in the last qual listed [a candidate cannot be a current member of the Moderation team]. I believe that entire policy needs revision, anyway.

My two cents:

I neither voted for, nor participated in the election of Wylted as president of this site, and, frankly, was heretofore unaware the party was the president of the site. Nevertheless,  my commentary below is therefore utterly unbiased. At the time of that election, I was not an active member of the site, having requested to be banned from some point in 2022 for a period of my choice for reasons not necessary to air here, but mentioned just to advise my unbiased opinion in this post. I returned this past March. 

I have had my own interaction with the party banned, and do not object to the ban, finding that, at the least, the party in question violated

CoC, Objectionable Content: "5. If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, moderation shall: [a. b. c. d]"

Moderation, in my opinion, acted within these current CofC policy steps. I further suggest a re-call of Wylted as President. Sorry to offend, but I think the action taken by this post violates the expected integrity of, let alone the distinction's ignorance noted above of an acting president.