fauxlaw

And that, my friend, is exactly why we do not have CRT; we have an individual racism problem. I don't talk like that, don't think like that, and certqainly do not condone talk like that; the talk of a cretin.

Look, my view is this; simple, straight forward in your face: I don't care if you are black, white, green, blue, or completely colorless, because you and I, and every other mother's kid are not any of those colors. Get it?  That is a distinction that is literally skin deep, and it ends there. We all bleed red. Our DNA is racially indiscriminate. Hell, we do not blood type by race. Race, in my book simply does not exist.  I celebrate our diversity of appearance and culture. I bless the day God made us different, just to challenge us to get over our   @#$~@#R%@#  comments like yours. THAT is the problem, even when you're just joking. It ain't funny, man, never was, never will be. Get a !@#%!$%@% clue, yeah???

Why the hell the government wants to establish a racial demographic in the census is beyond me. Does our infrastructure [anymore] cater to race? No. De we educate based on race? We should not. Census-wise, I am a nose. That's it. Count me.

Another good post/question. Welcome to the site, by the way. Please fill out some items in your profile to help get to know you. If you need help in that regard, glad to help in any way, and the mods [moderators] exist entirely for that purpose, and other stuff.

To your question: I am married for 47 years to one woman. I made a commitment then to which I have held for all those years because, well, I believe in being true to covenants. Sexual purity goes beyond just the commitment to my wife. Even before marriage, I respected the purity of the girls/women I dated [I married at 23] too much to take from them that which was not mine to take, as if she were a cupcake. Even when offered - and I had those experiences - I declined because I respected them even if they did not. I look at women in this context: Michelangelo's Sistine chapel ceiling features the center panel of Adam's creation [so it is called], but Adam is at arm's length and finger-length from God, and a slight separation between them at that. Meanwhile, that is Eve at his left shoulder, in God's protective embrace. My preference is to consider this panel as "Eve's creation." She was, after all, the last creation of all things. Considering that kind of respect from God for her, I say all her daughters deserve the same. Yeah, it's personal preference, but strike preference; it's a commitment.

Theory: Geocentrism.

It was possible, but ultimately became impossible, and it did not happen in any way, even though a suggested reasonable explanation as fact, in fact, was accepted as fact, even though encompassing only a suggested system of science. Such are the spoils of many theories, simply because as eloquent as they may be expressed, in the end, they fair no better than Mark Twain's conclusion: "It is not what we don't know that gets us into trouble; it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." I give as much credence to theory as a wish balloon.

No, I've said all I intend to say on the matter of "systemic" racism in my debate with Undefeatable, which stands as an indictment on Critical Race Theory [the theory has actually been around since the 70s, and still, not a shred of evidence] because... well, because Mark Twain was correct. It's a volume of wish balloons that have been blown up with hot helium, and they just float away...

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  John 14: 27

This has taught me that peace is so much more than the mere absence of war. It is a positive attitude that shapes my well being and my entire life. In his peace is the Savior's wrapped arms around me that leaves me assured I am never alone, and never lacking his love. What joy that sweetness brings.

I entirely agree with your #10. To simplify, I would suggest the mere two commandments Jesus offered in Matthew 22:  Love God, love your neighbor. The power of love, if used correctly, has the motivation to treat everyone with respect, meaning all 10 mosaic commandments are covered, let alone every other commandment documented by scripture. They would, in effect, Summarize the entire U.S. Code to less than 50 pages, so simple and profound are these two great commandments. And if practiced, they would solve every single social ill we face today, because their adherence demonstrated by us would, on their own, signify our complete compliance with the attitudes presented in the Sermon on the Mount, which amounts to the best political, let alone religious platform ever devised.

CRT = Critical Race Theory, for the uninitiated.

Emphasis on the last word: theory. According to the OED:   Theory, n.  a. The conceptual basis of a subject or area of study. Contrasted with practice.  Conceptual: like the napkin-generated idea at lunch of a new product. Like a proposal that the universe is geocentric, which was considered ""practical" until it wasn't. Theory is not empiric, pure and simple. Until it is no longer theory [either proven wrong, like geocentrism, or substantiated by empiric evidence, it remains conceptual. In the case of CRT, the empiric evidence must demonstrate a current law or gov't department policy, as I charged in my debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2780-thbt-systemic-racism-is-a-significant-problem-in-the-us with Undefeatable, which concluded 2 months ago, and which I won, due to the utter lack of demonstrating such evidence. What the average person may think, and act upon, is not evidence of systemic, or CRT. The average person, or even a collected group, who do not legislate or spew policy, are not systemic, or CRT. Period. Therefore, CRT has no leg standing, or one to stand upon.

Indeed, and interesting posit. I've not read Brin, but it sounds like something I'd enjoy. At least the higher achieved species appear interested in trade rather than invasion, if only for our consequence of bio-diversity, among which just might include whale song, but, from an audio sensation perspective, I'd certainly argue Beethoven and Led Zeppelin. And thunderstorms.

Yeah, I was not accusing that the comment was an argument you were trying to defend. Thanks. All cool.

Yes, they could, but, would they? I would presume aliens of greater intelligence and technology would have no need to invade Earth in the first place. Resource mining? I suspect if their tech takes them beyond our Kardashev Scale of types, they don't need our resources. Now, if their purpose is other than invasion, a cooperative educational mission, for example, then I, for one, invite their arrival.

Yes, it was a bloody serious response, and I don't use YouTube to prove my point. It's what we call, in the debate format, "common knowledge." It works in Forum, too. I'm expecting some bloody common sense to have credibility, clocks, time, and earths position, as included factors. You are dealing, I'll remind, with a BROKEN clock, after all. When things break of that nature, I replace them, I don't expect them to be right, and I'm certainly not going to be satisfied by their being right just 0.05% of my day.

In other words, it's a bloody useless idiom. I did not raise the broken block. Your idiom, not mine.

Well, that's a generous claim; if only it were true. At the rate of government spending, before Biden took office, if the 1%ers were taxed at 100% [their entire annual income, as currently constituted] they would cover gov't spending for 5 or 6 months. Who supplies the rest? Obviously, not the 1%ers, so stop saying they do, now. Add the spending Biden is  imposing, maybe the 1%ers will cover a single quarter, which imposes on the rest of us even more. The actual claim of the above was made by Paul Ryan in 2011, but things have changed a bit since then. Further. Michael Moore rebutted the claim, but Moore's figuring accounted for net worth of 1%ers, and not their annual earning, so his numbers don't jive. Politifact rated Ryan as half-true, because his numbers came from 2011, but his point was accepted that the government cannot count on taxes from the 15ers, alone.  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/oct/20/paul-ryan/ryan-says-100-percent-tax-millionaires-would-only-/

Personal income tax pays about 50% of the annual budget

Corp tax pays about 7%

Payroll taxes [SS, Medicare, etc] pays about 36%.  https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-revenue-federal-government

The entire point of Christ responding to a question posed to him re: what were the great commandments, he replied [Matthew 22] with two, which, in effect replace all 10 of those "lead-by-the-nose" commandments in Exodus, not to mention the balance noted in Lev, Num, and Deut. Christ's point was exactly contrary to what you ask, because we should not need to be led by the nose. Christ's response:

1. Love God

2. Love your fellow man

Be keeping #1, the first 4 of the mosaic 10 [plus most of Lev-Num-Deut] are met in full, without our being led by the nose, pushing that nose into someone else's shyte.

By keeping #2, we no longer need leading by the nose relative to one another, in spite of our respective shyte. 

By keeping both, we summarily eliminate every social ill we encounter in today's society, bar none. We cannot keep one without the other, and it does not matter which one is chosen. Both are required for the full effect of completely ameliorating our society. As an agnostic, or even an atheist, you can still accommodate a prudent tradition that is represented by the idea that, when setting the table for a meal, an extra place-setting is set, just in case someone unexpected arrives, and good graces advise have a place for them to sit with your meal serving. If that honored, missing, but anticipated guest happens to be God, is that skin off your nose? Nope, it's just being neighborly.

Sorry, I do not click on random links, particularly typical nonsense in YouTube, where, within reason, anyone can post anything. So, unless you want to ask me specifically to what you are asking, without linking me to 9 seconds of trivia, you get no response.

Yet, you replied. Must have been taken as an argument. By whom? Your pocket mouse?

there will come a time you realize that name-calling is natural to Stephen [and his twin]; perhaps the singular nature they have. Scriptorian is not a name either wears well. They love hurling verses at people, but it might as well be like picking names out of a hat; utterly random, and without any fair consideration of what any random verse really says. Random because most verses, out of context, are rarely well understood.

Welcome to the site. Most here are very cordial and willing to actually discuss matters and not hurl them in your face. 

If you have something to say; you say it. Using YouTube is like the mimic of a duck without its quack.

@ Stephen

Look up the only reason he did exist. The first mention of the need of a Messiah comes in Genesis 3. You find the cherry; you're so good at picking it, alone.

I repeat:

You think time exists in a vacuum? That there is nothing to time but counting? Let's start first with the fact that, outside of man, time doesn't exist; we invented it as a convenience. Time is motion. That is, to be absolutely precise, as we have conceived it, time is an aspect of motion. Therefore, if your clock was broken at 13:30 yesterday, and now it is 13:30 today [I'm dealing with a 24-hour clock, here, to be "precise" [except that the Earth day is not an exact 24 hours anyway, so, which clock, even when operating according to manufactured design, is truly correct?], the Earth is no longer in the position it was yesterday, so, within the day, your broken clock is already wrong, let alone 12 hours from now.

I've encountered a question in my household that needs an answer beyond mine. I'm appealing to your good graces. I love my wife to death, but she hands on to anachronisms in the face of, according to a language problem we seen to have in abundance because we do not seem to share the skill of Adam to name things appropriately. I used, once, on this issue, the example of the mouse. Not the cute little rodent, as if we would accept one [careful! it may just be a small rat] sitting on our desk. I'm talking about that computer interface device whereby images are manipulated on our computer monitor. While it would be a stretch to call the current device a mouse [remember, the original device had a cable, but it was mounted in the head and not the rump], and, in the case of the pad in virtually every laptop made today is not called a mouse, our wireless, handheld models still are.

Well, my problem is with another device: a television. Just before starting this string, I checked Amazon for that device by name: television, the original device from, what, 80 years ago, roughly, which provided both image and sound, but included a tuner, and speakers, all mounted in a convenient box. Does that device still exist? You might have one, but, in my mind, if they are not currently sold, they are no longer made. Made, as in two older such devices consult some birds and bees, a stork is called in, and, voila: offspring. 

Back to Amazon. I went through nine pages [there were 171] of "television," never encountering the device in a box described above. They all looked like the devices I have in my home; four of them, not including the other devices I have with monitors and wifi streaming capability.  I concluded that "televisions" do not mate and make anymore; therefore, they are extinct, even if there are living samples. That how we refer to "extinction in nature; we may have living specimens, but if they are no longer mating pairs... well, we're familiar with the extinction process.  What is in my house is a monitor without a tuner [though, it has speakers I don't use], which, according to Amazon, are procreating like rabbits.

So, if the device does not have a tuner, and depends on some other device to receive a signal [there are several], can the device in question still be called a "television," or must it be something else? The term I've mentioned seems appropriate: a monitor [no, not a lizard].

Defined in post #1

Every one of us, I don't care wgo, began with at least a mother and father. Whether they considered themselves that is, of course, variable, but that was always the intent from the beginning of Earth's human family, bar none.

Why? You make something, you have responsibility for it, whether it's a cutting tool, or a baby. It is what "have dominion" means, first, last, always.

As a society, we give little credence to the SoM. Instead, we have allegiance to being woke. Big deal.

You will note a hierarchy of proper attitudes, first to one’s self, and gradually transcending, from Matt 5 through 7,  to society at large, from individual, to family, to society. No, ‘family,’ as a word, is not given, but is implied in the importance of other people.

The nuclear family has a better chance of supporting one another in an attempt to live by it than by a lone individual, and change lndividul by individual, then family by family...

Wrong, and wrong before, and ever will be wrong.  Apparently, I have greater control of emotions. We’re all different, in this matter and others. As I’ve noted many times: Argue for your limitations; they’re yours. I have mine, too, but this isn’t one of them.

I have no problem accepting that as phrased. 

Yes, and I see the evidence of that at many street corners blessed with red lights: guttered cigarette butts, as if the automobile ash tray [so-called for a reason] was for collecting coins.

Oh, so, the older woman [94] who lives with my wife and I, occupying the full basement of our home that we prepared specifically for her  is not her biological mother? I humbly beg to differ. That will be news to my mother-in-law. After all, I am not biologically related to my wife, am I? Well, ultimately, we are, because we are both the generational children of Adam and Eve, and. so would be, then, my in-law brother and sisters, and my brothers are in-law relations to my wife. The ultimate nuclear family happens to be the children of Eve, [sired by Adam] who is called [by Adam], after all, "the mother of all living." Yeah?

You think that is all just figurative? You may be aware that in my religious realm, contrary to what is said to virtually every other married couple, "Until death do you part" [and over 50% do not even honor that, anymore, in my realm, marriage is eternal, and we are told that in the marriage ceremony. That is one of the primary purposes of our building temples all over the Earth. It is called "the everlasting covenant of marriage," snd the resulting family is not just nuclear, it, too, is eternal.

What an absurd notion. We should have better control of our emotions than to let them run our lives. Yes, love is a choice, or it is something else; not love.

Says who? That the concept of celibacy applies to God the Father, and Christ is a supposition merely because biblical scripture has no mention of it [although it does, and even in the ten commandments: "Honor thy father and thy mother..."  Bo, beside this, there is no reference to marriage of the Father or the Son, but that does not mean they were not. There are considerable missing truths from biblical scripture, but I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the Bible as intended holy writ has been corrupted, such as this notion of celibacy.  I not only believe both are married, but that the notion of God's Sireship of you and me is absurd without the notion of a Mother in Heaven, the literal parents of our spirits. We do not know for whom the marriage feast at Cana was for, and, yet, it seems Mary had a more significant role than merely a guest. Hmmm? The marriage of Jesus to a bride otherwise never mentioned, perhaps? He was certainly of age. And why not? Why, to sell this idea of Christ's celibacy, which was, in my view, one of the dumbest ideas to foster in the first place.

The concept of family is far, far older than the 13th century. I believe the concept of marriage, and family, is as old, and older, than God, himself. He had a father and mother, too. And so on, eternally backward, and forward, too. That's what eternity is, after all. It has no relation to "time."

That's the very problem I specify. Benevolence is haredly the leading factor of society anymore; precisely my point.

But you're both still just talking about general and specific. I still don't see how that should necessarily be separated topics. It's all games. Look at the variety of activity that falls under "sports"

Now, see, there's my ignorance of gaming shining through. I've heard of Mafia, of course, and have seen it discussed, but I have no idea in which of the two gaming topics it resides.

We are all endowed with the freedom of choice. All choices have consequences. Some good, some okay, some not so okay, some not good.  Not my place to judge which choice is which. All I know is that my choice has given me joy. Men [in a generic sense] are that they might have joy. I suppose joy comes in many flavors; to each their own.

I will add, however, that with the decline of the nuclear family has grown social unrest, and I see a definitive correlation in my lifetime.

You've hit on something significant I'd never considered. It explains, perhaps, why science and nature are a combined forum topic, because science is merely the reasoned explanation of nature, where man has been enabled to discover the reasoning. Without man, there is no science, effectively; it's all nature. Sometimes we even get it wrong, but nature continues, unabated. We just figure out we're wrong and alter our reasoning [science] accordingly. Something like climate science, which is, after all, a very young science, respectively speaking. Most new science is fits and starts. but nature continues...

I like that perspective as it actually eliminates the eventual future potential of both parties; victim and perp.

I maintain the Sermon on the Mount has, within its brief words [just three chapters in Matthew], read easily within a half-hour, the solution to every single social ill we face, have ever faced, and ever will face, yet it holds no significant place in our hearts as a unifying power for good.  Even if it was looked upon as a secular social document, like the Constitution, if God were not part and parcel of it, everyone, religious and not, could take advantage of its power as a force for good.

I believe, as a related matter, that the nuclear family: father, mother, and children, and perhaps even a grandparent, etc, in one household, is a hidden power that would solve our social problems, but, it, too, is being ignored for the potential it has to heal society of its miseries.

Think about it.

When I look at the directory of forum topics, I see two relatively anemic, yet related topics that continue to be kept separate, as noted above. Granted, I know I'm not a gamer, but just looking at the numbers, the two, combined, have less than 1,000 combined topics. Yes, most other topic headings are <1,000, too, but why isn't gaming a single topic, regardless, considering they are narrowly separate topics. After all, we have separate topics for "People" and "Personal." So, why does gaming get to take up space with 2 separate topic headings?

Just a thought.

Socialism: the one economic theory to which I can say: When you consider the fantastic opportunity socialism has to educate, aren't you glad that it doesn't?

If there is any redeeming value to Biden, it is that he makes me laugh. A lot. Thanks, Joe.

Is there anything to the idea that the very things we begin to value as a civilization begins to become a nuisance in the things we throw out, but don't use a garbage can?

Like masks?

Who?

@RM

You've missed my point. Kammie is not the Vice. She IS the Pres. Biden is the shiny gold tooth in the smile.

Best VICE president? What's the Vice all about? Both she and Biden know otherwise.

But, no, she is not. I'm kind of partial to  Dan Quayle because he basically sat down and shut up, though I was not so thrilled with his President. Kammie knows neither consequence of office, and her smile would sink a thousand ships.

I'm not sure Biden knows when or where July is, or what it's for, but that's just me. In the state of my mountain home, we've been effectively open already for months; kids went back in school in August [last year, that is] with masks, and businesses have been open, including in-dining with social distancing and masks when not eating, since May last year. I wear a mask because I am in the most at risk age group, but it's no big deal to me. Most people out and about war masks. Got my two shots over a month ago. I say, open sesame.

@Stephen

Re: Your #5, that those of the first century C.E. coincident with Christ would see his second coming [by virtue of the claimed understanding of Matt 24: 34's statement of "This generation..." meaning the coincident generation of the first century]. I quote from a comment I made in a current debate: [note the reference to verse cherry-picking, your favorite pastime:

"It is argued that Matt 24: 34 is a difficult verse to interpret. Yes, it is when one attempts to do so by cherry-picking the verse on its own. But the set up begins verses earlier, specifically at verse 3, when the entire discussion begins at the Mount of Olives, and many signs are given of the [second] coming of the Lord. We still await some of those signs, such as the sun darkening in concert with the moon turning red. Typically, a red moon is caused by a lunar eclipse, the result of being in Earth's shadow, but that is not the only cause of a red moon. It can also turn red when Earth's atmosphere's air molecules scatter blue light more than usual. If that occurs in conjunction with a darkening sun [it can], then we have the sign foretold. Hasn't happened, yet. Other signs are given, that haven't happened, yet, either. It is THIS [that is, that still future generation] the "difficult" verse speaks of, not the generation of the first century C.E.

"All the effort of defining the Greek term γενεά (genea), was a red herring argument. As usual, cherry picking solves very little and is the primary reason that some say verse 34 is difficult to interpret. Words mean things, yes, but context, such as including the previous 31 verses to capture the whole story, is just as important, if not more so."

Nope, not familiar with Cider, but I looked it up. looks like a good story. Dummy me, I assumed Laurie is a girl until getting further into the review. Few Yanks name their sons Leslie, but it is known. Laurie, I've never encountered as a male name. But, what's in a name, some Brit once said.

Kidding. This is an avid fan of the Bard.

Curious you should pick that age. When I was seven, the kid next door, for the past three years, was my best friend; Charlotte. At seven, we started playing doctor, and we had our respective fingers on and in target, respectively, so, we figured out how birds and bees fly.  No, I hadn't then figured out the variety of encounters, but then, I already knew by which mode the music swung for me, so, the variety didn't matter. Sadly,  she moved away a year later, but returned to town for a visit with other family when we were 16, and, well, without getting graphic, and without spoiling our respective abstinence, we confirmed how things had changed, so, we were also our first in-the-altogether experience. There may be more enlightened seven-year-olds, but this one was hardly void of experience.

LOL means frightened little girl; didn't you know? No, the acronym doesn't fit; an d that's part of the solution.

Yeah, I've seen something like that, too. First impressions are fast impressions.

The point doesn't get it,  nor do you.This is Kahlil Gibron:

"The [clock] who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.

The [clock] who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child. Teach him.

The [clock] who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.

The [clock] who klnows, and knows that he knows, is a prophet. Follow him."

That's not what the stats say.  According to https://www.thoughtco.com/abstinence-only-sex-education-3533767

from 2019:

18 states [36%] teach contraceptives only

26 states [52%] teach both contraceptives and abstinence

11 states [22%] teach abstinence only

Which is it, not enough or over-presented? Can't be both in any given school.

^^^^ Can't take a joke?