fauxlaw

When one does not understand the effect of a 30x factor of heat-retaining property, yes, that is the ignorant conclusion. With percentage being a constant factor where in 2% is twice 1%, and 65% [the contribution of CO2 to heat retentive GHGs]  is twice 32.5%, one must nevertheless realize that that CH4 has a 30x factor increase in heat retentive capability over CO2. Therefore, if CO2's 65%  is causing a rise in temperature of 1 degree C, CH4's 16% cause of GHG heat-retention effect, is:

65 / 16 = 4.06, therefore, there is 4x more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere.

30 : 1 is the ratio of Ch4's effect of heat retention over CO2.

Therefore, CH4's increased change is of much higher effect than CO2

The GND is after the wrong GHG, period. And, GND ignores that the primary source of atmospheric CH4 is NOT fossil fuels, but microbial activity, i.e. every living thing on Earth farts, including rice paddies more than cows. Inconvenient? Well, the GND prophet AlGore said it was inconvenient, didn't he? He was just misinformed about what the inconvenience really is. Pure and simple. GND is an agenda, not science. What's the agenda? Answered above in my #2.

 

One-third (approx) of your allotted 24 hours are unconscious, as well.  If you are severely injured and require induced coma, are you not unconscious, but have not suspended your personhood legally or medically? So, do we parse personhood be degree?

This has devolved in to a 2-on-none conversation. Get a room.

My wife graded me as an A textulist. Sorry; unavoidable.

You've just wipe3d out over half the population by that claim. Women can't have sex with a chicken, alive or dead?

Frankly, I think excluding women for this perversion is appropriate, because it is perverse for men, as well. MNre than that, just plain stupid, more so than using a tree's knothole. If that's what gets a guy's rocks off, he has more problems than poor sex partners. Lacking rational thought, for one. Like I said: stupid.

No, I am not wrong. Whereas, 1/3 of all live births, on average, occur each year, adding roughly 1.2M to the population annually, are by C-section, abortions of any kind after 21 weeks occur at just 1.3% per year, about 11K, for all types of late-term abortion procedures, of which there are at least 3 methods, including by C-section. I'd say the abortion-intent of C-section is about 0.9%, at best [assuming all late abortions are C-section, which we know is not the case] compared to the live-birth intent of the C-section procedure, annually. Less than 1% doesn't exactly float the boat of your argument.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) constitutionally protected the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)  allowed the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment to sustains life. Both case decisions involve allowance of the right to bodily integrity that may logically be extended to a person seeking health care services at his or her own expense, but not at public expense, which is precisely supported by the Hyde amendment.

By Roe v. Wade, abortion's effort was to end the life of the fetus in pre-natal condition, except that Roe did not anticipate a later development to be mentioned in a moment. By its definition as you would consult, from Lexico:  "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." Well and good, except that the result of abortion is not included in this definition - avoiding the consequence altogether. The online Merriam-Webster offers a virtual match to Lexico's. Whereas, my OED [not the same as Lexico, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions]  defines the term as:  "The expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, spec. (Medicine) in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result either of natural causes (more fully  spontaneous abortion) or of a deliberate act (more fully  induced abortion); the early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus; an instance of this."  

Is there any question about this definition's statement about the intented result of "abortion?" The fetus is DEAD. 

According to https://www.healthline.com/health/c-section the intent ofd a C-section is: "A cesarean delivery is typically performed when complications from pregnancy make traditional vaginal birth difficult, or put the mother or child at risk. Sometimes cesarean deliveries are planned early in the pregnancy, but they're most often performed when complications arise during labor."

Is there any question about this definition's statement about the intended result of "C-section"? The fetus is BORN ALIVE [excepting complications that occasionally occur] however, I am demonstrating intent here, not the results.

And, not to forget [did you?] the aforementioned later development: "late-term abortion," which carries the identical intent of early-term abortion: DEATH.

What is vain about any religion’s description of deity? Personally, I hope God serves chocolate in heaven, but I have no empiric evidence that it will be on the menu. Do you know there will be a menu?  No, so don’t make waves about what any religion describes as their idea of God’s  nature just because it may differ from yours.

No apology to me necessary. You discount that a fetus can sense pain. Sorry if it offends, but they do, and indications are that it may occur as early as the low-teens in weeks of neural development, but is virtually complete at 23 weeks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/.  

Survivability of a premature live birth is currently set at about 20 weeks of gestation. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/stillbirth

Vegetable oil as lubricant:

Sure, in the abstract, sounds good.

But, veg-oil has poor performance in oxidative and hydrolytic stability, resulting in reduced motor longevity, and that consequence worsens with use of re-processed oils from other, earlier uses. 

According to 1 U.S.C. 8 - Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant:  

I oppose the Green New Deal for the following reasons:

1. The "bill" to which you refer is not really binding legislation. It is a resolution, which bears no legislative teeth, i.e. its passage in Congress only means Congress should consider such legislation. The resolution amounts to nothing more than a wish balloon.

2. The resolution's second stated purpose is "Achieving net-zero green house gas emissions." Net-zero does not mean complete elimination [but tell that to Joe Biden, who does not understand the difference between net and gross, and I wonder if the resolutions sponsor, AOC is as confused]. Regardless, the specific GHG everyone targets is CO2. Yes, according to the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data it is responsible for 65% of all GHGs, but ignores that methane [CH4] is 16% [roughly 4x less], but that ignores that CH4 is a much higher influencer to GHG issues than CO2, by roughly 30x. So, why isn't the GND target CH4? Answer: an agenda, to wit:

3. The resolution calls for "removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors."  Fine, but by singling out transportation and agriculture, transport makes sense: its engines are primarily GHG producers from fossil fuel. Why agriculture? Because it also uses a variety of engines, as well - planting, cultivating, and harvesting equipment, all using fossil fuels. However, one may think [and the generic inclusion of "agriculture" conveniently ignores that the natural [as opposed to cultivated] side of agriculture includes a huge portion of GHGs produced by... natural means, such as fermentation of wetlands [natural and cultivated, such as rice!] and microbial emissions, having naught to do with fossil fuels, and the elimination of fossil fuels will do nothing to curb these natural sources, will it?  https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions,  https://theprint.in/environment/why-methane-is-a-far-more-dangerous-greenhouse-gas-than-carbon-dioxide/378858/

4. The GND ignores that even green-energy turbine [hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, plus solar panels, plus electric vehicles] use fossil fuel products [oil] to lubricate the moving parts, and fabricate all plastic parts, and all of them would literally seize if fossil fuels were to be eliminated, because nobody has yet invented AlGoreGooeyJuice.

5. The GND states in the the text: "(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;"  This sounds subtle and innocent enough, but the basis of HR109 is another production of AOC, from the Green Party's suggested framework that became HR109,    https://www.gp.org/gnd_full   which includes in its text,  "Create a Commission for Economic Democracy to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting and institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making." Note the bolded text, and take a guess what "participatory budgeting" means relative to "businesses," i.e., private enterprise: government intervention in private enterprise budgeting in the name of GND.  Does Congress have the right to meddle in private industry budgeting. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8... nope. But, does the GNS give a rip about the Constitution? Nope.

There's more, but that's enough to soundly oppose the GND. The whole thing is an agenda, and it does squat for the environment. It isn't green, it isn't new, and it is no deal. It's a power-grab of monumental proportion.

SC Senator [R]

There's a difference between critique and slamming someone. Slamming gets banned.

You're really going to re-establish my opinion, because you don''t like how it was worded, then my justification, and, finally, my extrapolated conclusion, and I've had naught to do with any part of that other than expressing an opinion?  Why don't you just take my identity while you're at it. You've usurped everything else. Back off. My shoes are mine, thanks.

Um... who said you have a guarantee to life? Roe v. Wade?

Funny thing about your Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN:

So, why isn't anyone pounding the pavement over that one, calling out abortion, and Roe v. Wade, as a violation?  1948. 1973? Seems a precedent was ignored.

Nope, not saying any of those things, Just saying I would not arbitrarily limit the nature of aliens and demons. Why do people want to read into a statement more than the words say? Words mean things; how one interprets them is on that person, not the writer/speaker. Otherwise, one begins to appear as they have an agenda when none is implied but by interpretation not in the words.

I'll accept that caveat.

What makes it so? These never have been human rights. What's changed, other than the increased urgency of entitlement? Do you want to accept "basic utilities" such as a tent, a water filter [you get your own water and container; I have to pay for mine], your public access to a community garden [you plant your seeds, or starter plants], which you buy [I have to buy mine, and I have a private garden, but none of the product is free], and you can have your rice, but leaver my steak alone [rice emits more methane than cow farts], and I don't know what you consider etcetra, but I'm not inclined to agree.

Yes, but who ever said that minimum wage should be able to support a household. Minimum wage was a concept begun by the Fair Labor Act of 1938, and it stipulated that minimum wage was for unskilled labor for one person, not a family. Since 1938 to today's dollar, the inflation rate addition would still offer less than what min wage is now in most states, and nothing has changed relative to the expected coverage of min wage: one person, not even two, let alone a typical family. When I came of working age, min wage was mostly for kids like me, but I never was hired just at min wage. I had marketable skills, even then. Min wage is such a low-ball goal, I wonder why Dems are so enamoured by it?

Is pope Francis Italian? No, and neither is Melania. I know some Italian, but listening to Pope Francis speaking Italian, he does not speak like a native Italian; few speakers of a foreign tongue do; Melania herself is difficult for some to understand, but I've been to over 30 countriers, most of which do not speak English as a native tongue, but many do speak it. They are sometimes hard to understand, so I get it when a non-Italian-native speaker [Francis] speaks Italian. I speak fluent French [both by education and living there for over three years], but it is not my native language, and sometimes I've screwed up, too. I am still considered fluent by francophone standards. And, sometimes, in conversation, I don 't say much, either. Just the nature of particular conversations, but one cannot judge on the basis of one or two exemplary conversations. A report that does not identify which language is spoken by two non-Germans is simply that, and has no credibility on either speaker's language skills, is it?

C'mon. You're making mountains of mole hills. To what purpose. To prove Melania is what? Only human, just like you? So, never heard of you. Melania, I've heard of. Jealous?

Didn't you guys hear the ending round 235525? Besides, there's blood all over the mat.

Why can't aliens be spiritual beings?

For that matter, why can't demons be physical beings?

But what a petty accusation in the first place. 

Treat people with respect, even in disagreement. Bingo, no ban.

Have you never been in a culture wherein the Christian God [though, as oromagi advised, that God is shared, if not by name, by entity among several religions] is not the one recognized as supreme? You might find cultural diversity negates your argument. Got to get out more.

You're usually pretty rational about stuff, but this was an invite to be dumped on, and you have been. You've reduced covid to an argument of celebrity news coverage, and a selective group of criteria that sufferers of covid either meet, or they don't count? ? Really?

Consider having been dumped, and I didn't name anyone. Truly dumb topic. C'mon,  man!

Are there flies buzzing about again?

Melania Trump was not born in USSR. She was born in Slovenia, which was once part of Yugoslavia, but neither were ever a Soviet state. And she was never a stripper, though did pose nude prior to meeting Trump. Get your facts straight. It's better to be credible than opinionated with error. No wonder we doubt the higher education claims of the; y'all prove its false all the time. By the way, she speaks five languagbes fluently: Slovenian, English, French, Italian, German. Five more than you.

Meek Ameerika Greeet Ageeen!"  Yes, five more.

Yes, I do. Marriage, to me, is a covenant. Sex outside of that covenant breaks it by sexual congress of any manner since I have contracted with my wife to not do that. Would I consider my bargain with a retailer to not steal his merchandise as remaining pure if I just stole a candy bar? In regard to covenants, no means no, with no exceptions.

Answer to both: Nope. I don't "bang" her at all. Sorry, you missed my point of of my #2 completely. Congratulations, but I'm not surprised. Respect, my friend, is a concept over your head. Grow up. I don't talk like that, even with just the guys, and I don't act like that. But where, oh, where, did I say that sex was exclusively entertainment? If that's your routine, I pity you. I said its biological purpose is procreation, which says nothing negative about it pleasure. Don't put words in my mouth; yours is all you have. Stick to it.

Judgment? Who's judging when "banging" is your vernacular? When you've been around as long as I have, you'll learn a little respect for women.   

I'm donew. You're not paying me to be your tutor.

Wow, have some hang-ups there? Did I say sex was just for procreation? No. I said that's the design of the process, but, enjoyable it certainly is, and there's nothing wrong with that, unless it is the only focus, and utterly indiscriminate. Did I say religious people don't engage in actions they should not by professed religion? No, I know they do. I happen to have committed otherwise, and I don't. I'm not imposing that on anyone else. Do as you wish. I'm just saying, if the pool is deep water and I don't swim, why would I jump in? That's not a religious decision; it is entirely practical. My religion just happens to agree. I can check that box.

"Social psychologists have long demonstrated that people are stereotyped on the basis of race." This quote is drawn from the debate, https://www.debateart.com/debates/3040-systemic-racism-fundamentally-causes-health-care-disparities-in-the-us , between Undefeatable [Pro] and Fruit_Inspector [Con], from Pro's R1 first source. It is a well known perspective, and perspective is what the cited article is all about. Relative to minorities [not just Blacks], that perspective is discussed as primarily negative. I am well aware of that. Unfortunately, for the article and the argument, it is not descriptive of my perspective, which was rooted in my formative, impressionable childhood and adolescence, which was spent in Brentwood, CA, an unincorporated, totally surrounded village of middle-to-upper class neighborhoods of whites, blacks, latinos, asians, etc. We were virtually all well enough to do that tomorrow's dinner was certainly already in the refrigerator. It was a community of movie industry, professionals, and merchants. I learned later that I was spoiled, but it seemed pretty normal to me. And, more to the point, everyone got along. My backyard met Caesar Romero's [a Latino actor]. Up the street a ways, June Cleaver [Beaver's mother]. Around the corner, our family doctor. He was black, and made house calls. My dad was a hospital chief administrator, and a chemist by education; a doctorate from Yale. Through the block, and a friend, a hospital building contractor, Japanese. Steve McQueen, who liked chocolate chip ice cream [I worked in a neighborhood ice cream shop, where we made the ice cream on site] was several blocks away. So, what do you think was my perspective as described by this article? I come away from that kind of thinking that I don't fit in that paradigm, and maybe I wasn't so spoiled as I thought. My stereotype view was not raised on race. I grew up in humanity privilege. We all got there by the effort each brought to the table and no one thinking they were any better, or any worse, than anyone else. Sure, we all had flaws. Who doesn't? But these were good people I'd go to bat for any day.

It all seems to have changed, but are we any better for all our attempts at social engineering and psycho-babble crap like this article? I'll take my childhood, thanks, as the more honest, and generous engineering, when our neighborhood ignored everything but what really matter: personal integrity and responsibility.

Does All Saints Day have a similar relation to Halloween as Ash Wednesday to Mardi Gras? Personally, I find All Saints Day to be at least a more honest approach to attempting to seek forgiveness for past actions. Mardi Gras has no excuse: eat, drink and be merry the night before so the following fast can be endured. 

Not when both partners come to the marriage unsullied, and then remain committed to just themselves. Abstinence is 100% effective when practiced. No other artificial contraceptive has that track record, i.e., you have to use them in order to gain even a modicum of effectivity. Problem is, few want to say 'no' anymore; to their regret and frustration. Having said 'no' until I was married, and then 'no other' afterward, I remain free to say 'yes,' don't I? Having said 'yes' indiscriminately, who has then 'no' as an unsullied response? Which is sustained as pure in the end game?

Not just theory, but a theory camped on a theory. This thread was inspired by a debate challenge by Undefeatable,  https://www.debateart.com/debates/3040-systemic-racism-fundamentally-causes-health-care-disparities-in-the-us.  which, when I launched this string, as as yet unchallenged. It is now by Fruit_Inspector. However, in comments #23, I offered the following, with regard to one source Undefeatable offered in Description of the debate.:

Bell [2005] is, by self-admission [with spelling error, to boot: “analyses???”] a theory camped on a theory. “In this theoretical analysis… we demonstrate that racial formation theory…” Yeah, real evidentiary, isn’t it? So, where’s the “evidence” in this citation of an Abstract? I have no access to the article. A failed reference. [POL1] merely takes me back to Bell, with its limitations. [POL.H2] references the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which is neither a federal or state official agency in the construct of legislation or policy beyond the duties of individual mayors limited to their local jurisdictions. Further, the paper cited cites no legislation or policy directly to demonstrate the allegations made, and the references the paper does make uses data that is ¼ century old. I’ve asked for CURRENT evidence.

Supa, Thanks, I'd forgotten the Orthodox Easter. It does help that either calendar is correct, but, who cares at this point. with all the commotion anyway, I'm surprised we have not declared May racist, in addition to being lusty. My apologies to all named May; I mean the month; not you.

PolyWi - will you have any reveals about Halloween, by either calendar?

If neither of you are aware, I tend to develop my own nicknames for members. Sorry if that offends; I do it with best intended good nature.

Yes, I hear you. I forget your relative youth sometimes [relative to me, that is] because when you get rolling, you can be a fine debater, and your overall stats demonstrate that. And, after thinking better of our last debate on movies, I should have remembered you have schedule issues I just don't encounter anymore. I need to be more considerate in my reaction to requests like you had, because we could have, after all, cancelled and re-started a new debate when your schedule cleared. I apologize for not doing that. I'm afraid my own guilty knowledge of the subject salivated to take the debate in the first place.  I really did literally rub shoulders with movie industry people of several stripes from producers to stage hands, and dabbled myself with school and college drama productions, knowing enough [mostly by a liberal morality I  just could not agree with] that I would be crazy to pursue the career, though its siren song was powerful. I'll tell you for nothing that two of them were Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate, who lived in my neighborhood up the street. I was fascinated by Polanski, and utterly smitten by Sharon [I was 17]. She was a brilliant woman, not just another airhead with a non-stop body. Her death made him cuckoo with the dalliance with underaged girls.

Is it "intellectually honest" to coin a phrase, "global warming" just because in the last thousand years, we're experiencing an apparent upward temperature trend that is a higher trend than the 900 years before it [my numbers may not be exact, but climate science isn't so exact, itself, being an adolescent science compared to others], when even over those hundred years, our measurement accuracy has allegedly increased ten-fold, at least, and so how accurate were our measurements those hundred years ago? And not just accuracy, but repeatability of those measurements due to calibration errors, let alone altering methods of measurement? By measurement of core samples? From where, specifically, and how consistently, all while assuming that we ever had a stable climate 10K, 100K, 10M years ago, anywhere on Earth? Hell, we even know now we have a problem with calibration of equipment aboard measurement satellites circling the globe. 

And then, in the midst of a "global warming" crisis, more measurements indicates that within our 100-year trend, we're in a mini-cooling trend. Well, we are in the midst of an ice age, and ice ages historically do this, so we change our nomenclature to give us "Climate Change" in stead of global warming. Well, who said we should have a stable climate? Some theorist who really doesn't know squat about what he thinks he knows? Who the hell really knows if we face a catastrophic crisis, or just an ordinary spike we've probably endured more times that rabbits have congress? Because the term used now is actually fairly accurate: Climate changes. So do seasons, so what is the alarm all about? Same thing that alarms all progressives: if they don't have something to wring their hands about, they go cuckoo, which is a little cuckoo regardless, in my book.

This is intellectual honesty? Good joke.

Cont'd: the problem I have is that numbered ciphers are each unique unto themselves; nary one repeat in the entire infinite set of numbers. Not so with words. Each word should have a unique meaning, like numbers. That they don't is language's faux law, if you will. [Never before have I been able to use my moniker as a metaphor!] a mouse should be a rodent. The computer device ought to be an epositor [puts an electrographic object in its place]

I came across this disconnect while in France. I discovered that the French did not have a word for transom, the hinged device over doors to allow ventilation. They have them, but never had a word for them. They appropriate a German word, which languages do all the time - borrow from one another. However, in this case, the word[s] they borrowed were "vas es das." [What is that?] The germans do not [or did not] have transoms in their building architecture. When invading France, they asked what it was. Thee French, not having a word for it, thought the Germans knew what it was, and were pointing to it to tell the French what is was. Or, so goes the story I was told by a French WWII veteran in Cannes.

One difference I perceive between us is that I aim for exact definitions of words, knowing that they modify throughout their history, and you're more willing to float with that issue. A perfect language would not need to change as our plethora of languages do. We had the same argument of the meaning of gender. It is the fault of our in -bred curiosity that has not the facility of naming things with an intent of exactness; hence, our disagreement of such a word as theory. I find the same interrupts with "mouse" as a descriptive for the hand manipulation of data on a monitor. "Looks-like" is not a valid reason to adopt words from other uses. It just means that curiosity/creative-wise, we're more adept at invention than description.

Yes, until...and "until" is a huge factor, because: theory is propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world, until better propositions convert phenomena observed, but not yet experimented enough to change the unknown of obs and exp to truth, which is about the only reason that science does not use "truth" in the definition of "theory," and facts can change based on the historical modification of "facts" not observed enough to establish and determine truth. Therefore, kick and moan as you will, theory =/= truth. That has been my point all along.

Yes. There are many pleasure-inducing activities. That one has the biological function of procreation, regardless of its feel-good potential. Feel good another way. Since that activity has a purpose beyond and outside of stimulation, it makes no sense to engage it strictly within the intent of pleasure, as that pleasure is fleeting, at best. It's the separation between joy and happiness. Happiness is fleeting. Joy can be long-lasting delight. There's your distinction between eros and agape. 

That bill is https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/billbookmark/?yr=2021&bn=H0377. just in case anyone wants to see what it REALLY says. It's short, and DArt members will find that, as characterized by oromagi, the bill does  not quite stoop to the level of the characterization offered by oro. Don't know if oro read the bill, or just messNBC's version of it. By the way, signed into law in late April, not May 4. Mess may not have heard of it until the 4th, but that's on them, or whoever oro's source is.

 Tucker, who? One seems to think I have a membership card to whatever club that is, Nope; guess again. I do much of my own thinking, anyway. Got the time to do it.

I note, for the record, that your Trump tirade offers no scholastic support for your opinions. I, therefore, take them as such, and ignore. After all, treason is a matter that requires an injury claim in court, by the people, as it were, and you seem to lack any citation for that, as well.  As for EOs, "white privilege" or "critical race theory" are terms that are not policy statements nor current legislation, so, what's the beef? 

Show me where I made that claim. I have not strung those words together here, no anywhere else. That is your assumption of what I've said, but you do not put words in my mouth, thanks. Otherwise, thanks for the lesson, but as CRT has been around for 50 years, and me longer, I'm kind of aware of it. As in, I heard it enough in poli-sci from left-wing profs in my junior and senior years, let alone in my history doctoral. I had a lengthy essay combatting it which my lefty prof bled all over, even though he could not, then, refute any of my citations. He just simply did not agree. I gave him a jar of peanut butter to compensate for his loss of blood. 

Yes, I extend faith into all aspects of life. To me, faith and belief are entirely separate matters. No one is compelled by what they believe, belief asks nothing of us. Faith, on the other hand, demands we do something about it, such as pursue whether something is true, or not. Faith, to me, is already tied to something that is already true, and we, individually, may not yet be aware of the truth. I believe faith, therefore, leads ultimately to perfect knowledge by an active desire to learn it, or it is not faith that is operating. I can, therefore, have faith, and ultimately acquire perfect knowledge on any subject whatsoever. I applied faith in school to my subjects and their exams, [and thereby excelled - I have 2 PhDs] and so developed, for example, my standards on sexual relations. I am, however, very religious, as you note on my favorite scripture.

No, not due to scripture. The issue, whether I am married, or not, is that I simply will not engage relations with a woman to whom I am not married, since the sex act, which, often engaged merely for pleasure, has the possible consequence of pregnancy, and I totally disagree with artificial contraceptives, and I personally engaged in abstinence before marriage, also by choice. To engage at her request, ignores all of that, even if she considers otherwise. At that rate, it is her right overwhelming mine. I claim the right to not engage, Simple as that. Is my right any less applicable? And, yes, because pregnancy is a possibility, even if she uses contraceptives, none of which are 100% effective, it is a possibility she ignores, which I personally consider is irresponsible on her part. I am big on personal responsibility, and expecting that others are, too, knowing some are not. It what generated MTV's Jackass movies and skits.

Semantics? Isn't saying "the theory of..." just a semantic of its own? Yes, I said "Theory: geocentrism" However, in that case, geocentrism has been permanently relegated to mere theoretical status, with no ongoing effort to prove otherwise. Not so, gravity, yet. There are no viable theories being seriously considered that, by natural means, alone [although, hot-air balloons do a fairly decent job of contradicting gravity], of defeating gravity, and it does explain the primary reason why airplanes can hit the ground [though it is not the root cause]. I perceive theory to be a simple concept: not yet factually true. Something is either true, or it is not. We muddle the the matter simply by accepting some theory as fact. Believing geocentrism was true never made it fact. So much for belief.