fauxlaw

Well, the mask was in Biden's pocket...

I hear you, and mostly agree, other than on Trump v. Biden. Yeah, the lost mask is not such a heavy hitter, more like a bunt, but, I just enjoy poking Biden. I know I should be kind to the mentally disabled, but this man is supposed to be our President, and I see nothing but footprints all over him. He's a walking invitation to be a sidewalk.

Well said.

Double-R, your #77 was merely a repeat with no critical analysis of dustyryder's #5. So, I'll repeat my #84 to you both

In other words, when anything violates its intended purpose, even by being broken, it is not fulfilling the full measure of its creation. A broken clock is only correct twice a day? 1,440 minutes to a day, in a gross measure of time. That is being correct 0.1% of the daily whole. It's actually worse just by the rough calculation in seconds, another gross measure. Face it, dead is dead. Thus, my door analogy, which door really serves no useful purpose because its only active function is as a wall. As a passage through one room to another, or from inside to outside, it frankly is not even there.

And that, friends, is how the Left spent in excess of four years, trying to get rid of a man the people, represented by the electoral college, duly elected a President, simply because they hated him with such passion, they were willing to make of him a broken clock, and then admit he was right twice daily.

Sorry, but that amounts to a broken logic, but you both refuse to walk through that non-existent door. Even open, you prefer the wall. Nice.

You have your wish. You have elected a President who cannot even find his mask, let alone a door. He's lost a mind he never had in the first place.  So, I'm so glad you've justified your broken clock, having elected it. Don't bother shaking and putting it to your ear, it isn't ticking.

Physically speaking, please tell me the distinction between procreational and recreational sex?

You're like the school district proposing a bus driver test to determine how close a candidate driver can approach a cliff with a bus-load of children, and not go over the edge. The best candidate avoids the cliff altogether. Abstinence is the avoidance of sexual activity. Stay away from the cliff, regardless of the procreational or recreational motivation.

I would not expect my children to do any different than I did as an adolescent. I abstained until marriage at 23, by personal choice, and I don't dabble outside of it, by personal choice.

Volo.

My day typically ends around 03:00. Typical rising: 09:00 My version of Bennie Franklin: early to bed.

#166, the poster's last prior to sanction, and the sanction described the very attitude expressed in #166. A lesson to all. The one universal belief across virtually all major religions and philosophies: "Do unto others..." Must be a meaningful suggestion, with which the CoC agrees.

Hint: posting a topic does not given ownership of the string to anyone, even the originator of the topic; no member is refused to post in any string but by ban from the entire site.

begorrah

speaking of WB Yeats, I once encountered a germane toast attributed to Yeats:

Begorrah!

I've only ever come across that idiom from WB Yeats. Well done!

I see what you're saying on the other comments, but I oppose the above. According to the FEC, which adminstrates such things, contributions are a significant registration issue.

Inspired by zedvictor4's recent topic on LTBQ. Jut looking for parity. Agree, oppose, or non-committal?

I'm sure this will have some opposing commentary by apologists. Remember, you carried on this mantra daily for more than four years; more than 1,460 days. This is 100 days, and counting. Is not turn-about fair play anymore?

Outside, at a podium, surrounded only by people who are tested and confirmed negative for Covid, and far from the assembled few attending the intended speech sequestered in their cars, is Joe Biden, crying "I've lost my mask!"  Biden acts like a kid who complains the dog ate his homework. At 100 days in office, I'm so thrilled by my President. Where is his mask? Uh, in the first place most look, first. In his pocket. I'm so looking forward to his first live summit with a foreign leader, who I suggest come with two or three spare masks, along with a spare mind to loan.

Not to mention having referred to Kammie as the "President" once again, just the night before. That he caught himself does not excuse. The signs in the WH declaring "The Biden/Harris Administration" are for Biden, alone, because he can't remember who is who. 

Considering who might endorse his candidacy, possibly not.

You make a claim that is not applicable to all individuals. For example, I claim no membership in any established political party in my State/Country, having declared myself, for voting purposes, a member of the Sermonist Party. Officially, that party does not exist, relative to Federal Election Commission [FEC], because FEC does not require registration of a political party if [1] it exits only within a State, and [2] it does not exceed a dollar threshold of contributions required of a political party for registration purpose.  To my knowledge, there are only four members of my Party, and none of us have contributed a penny to the Party, which is of my creation, based upon the principles [platform planks] as described in the Sermon. on the Mount. These contain, quite simply, the solution to every single social ill we suffer by today, and, therefore, meet the requirements of being political platform planks, even if the mention of religious jargon or significant persons is entirely ignored. An atheist can live by these principles without having to acknowledge God.

Therefore, I am, in this matter, alone in a crowd, as I have already suggested: a true individual with no need to acknowledge need or association with others in the random crowd

A broken clock is only coincidentally reflecting the time of day because the purpose of a clock is to maintain the time of day and nigh all day and night, not to merely be "correct" twice over that period. When one's purpose is not met, they are something else, but not what is intended. It is actually the same logic that a door is not a door when closed; it is a wall. Likewise, a door is not a door when open, because then, it merely marks a hole in the wall. Your dead clock with it's hands coincidentally marking a time of day, twice a day, is useless at all other times, like the open door, and the closed door.

More enthusiastic? More than Tim Scott?

You mean like a fetal individual is part of a female individual, i.e. sharing her DNA, let alone her thoughts, as a collective? Nope, "Part of," by an individual's perspective, in your collectivism, is not the correct term. "No man is an island" is a nice euphemism, but the fact remains, we can be ourselves, individually, even in a crowd, thus marching to one's own drum, and not the pounding by the collective.

A true story to drum the point home. A man attends a conference on STDs. With their name tags, they are given a few adhesive-backed color dots. The morning lecture talks of how easily STDs are transferred one to another. At the mid-morning break, while getting coffee and pastries, they are told to mingle and share their dots with one another, one at time. Ten minutes later, they sit to attend the second session. The moderator first tells the group to observe how they all have various color dots on their name tags, all given to one another. The one man stands and objects, noting for the crown that he did not comply with the instruction, and has no dots on his name tag. He saw through the ruse to demonstrate how easy it is to be infected, and infect with an STD, but it was also easy for him to resist. He remains  uninfected, and infected no one. That is an individual in a crowd, in the crowd, but not part of the crowd.

@RM

You accuse a man who died 156 years ago. The conditions of his time are radically different from your time, so don't paint Lincoln with a 2021 brush of conditions. Remember, his childhood included the reality of slavery as a concurrent and legal condition. Yours does not. So, on attending socio-political thought, render a decision on Lincoln according to his clock, not yours. The very issues by which you paint Lincoln were prevalent conditions in his time. They are not in your time. Please correct your clock., and the time it is representing. The hands have changed between then and now. Please catch up, because in Lincoln's time, your holy Left Wing did not agree with you, either. Nor in my childhood when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, with roughly one-third of Democrats, your Left Wing, in both Houses dissenting. Since then, yes, the Left has shifted, but it has not yet learned to stop hurling the racist card. Nor have you. 

Consider THAT in the face of your topic's "all"  claim.

My Party? Sorry, I'm not an Repub.

Wow. What a rebuttal speech by Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC] offered tonight in response to the This-is-not-a-State-of-the-Union speech by Biden tonight.

"Education is the closest thing to magic in America."

"You can't use race to solve discrimination."

"Original sin is not the end of the story."

Even if Donald Trump enters the race in 24, my vote is for Tim Scott.

I consider that individualism represents just about as many variables as there are individuals. That sounds like compounded variables, and that is exactly what it is. It is said no two of us are alike, even among "identical" [genetically] twins, triplets, or whatever count there may be. Emotionally, and by preferences, we are still different people.

Nor does feeling good constitute the entirety of sexuality. The act has variable consequences, both physical, spiritual, and emotional. To qualify that one or another is either primary, or not, and effective, or not, is inconsequential to the fact that the act occurs, and can have variable consequences. It seems to me that is what Edge is saying, and that's all he's saying,  and there's no right, wrong, or indifferent to different people about it. It is variable for each individual.

Edge, good post and topic.

Then say what you mean. Including which election of which you speak.

Do you not see the irony of that statement? First that your find the "it did happen" to be the more likely scenario, and claim Kavanaugh's handling tells you it did? When Ford's own "supporter" witnesses did not back Ford's claims?  Uh-huh, sure. Tell it to someone who did not watch the proceedings.

The evidence, like visitors compared to stinking fish, goes stinky with time, as with the visitors/stinking fish.

Two ironies in one post. Amazing.

RM's source cited in his post #111 states the following, quoting the lady source: 

This statement directly opposes the transcript of the Lincoln-Douglas Debate I cited above, #110, with regard to Lincoln's abolitionist status, which even Douglas acknowledge, let alone that Lincoln's stated opinion was that the decision regarding abolition of slavery belonged to Congress, and not to each State, and not to Lincoln, himself. I trust Lincoln's own words. I trust the words of his contemporaries, particularly one who was so closely acquainted with him, as was Douglas, rather than someone post-dating Lincoln by 148 years.

I offer the following in contention against RM's declaration in this string's post #2

In the seventh Lincoln-Douglas debate, conducted on Oct. 15, 1858, Justice Douglas said:

RM's claim [he does not cite it for any academic support] may have derived from the commentary of an editorialist [and not an academically-trained historian] Lerone Bennett, writing  “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?”  in Ebony, 1968. This article by Bennett cites the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, of which there were seven. I've cited from the seventh above. This citation does not agree with Bennett, or RM. In fact, I've re-read the whole of the debates [accessible from the citation above], having read them. in high school, and college. No statement by Lincoln in any of the debates supports Bennett's claims, and a simple read of the total debates will confirm it. So, read them. Lerone Bennett is an opinionated, historically dead, and bitter editor, a product of his time, and a seeker of anything but truth, a fumbling member of a jaded media. Let the scholarship prevail, along with the transcript of the Lincoln-Douglas debates to find the true opposer of abolition. Lincoln was only opposed to letting the decision of slavery to remain at state level, where Douglas argued it should be decided. Not to mention that even Douglas erred in his facts, declaring later in the 7th debate that, at the time of the Constitutional Convention [1788], of the 13 colonies, 12 were slave colonies-become States by ratification of the Constitution. Go look for the statement, if you care, and then for the real count of slave/free colonies. Yes, the majority were slave colonies, but not 92% [12 of 13] of them. As it happens, it was just 62% [8 of 13]. Hint, if you want to identify all of the slave states at the time of ratification, do remember to count New York. Douglas, in my opinion, shared my description of Bennett.

Considering that in this entire string, the accusation of "racist" exists from only one member, and that on four occasions [pgs 2, 4, all addressed to yours truly - albeit not accusing me of being so], and that member happens to be the initiator of this topic, which topic has no direct relation to that term, one might wonder just which type of person would consider such as accusation to be appropriate, let alone accurate, consider to whom it was first accused in this topic by the initiator: President Lincoln [pg 2], post #47]. You remember him, an R [the first of that Party to be a President], and the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, and for whom it would be interesting to see someone cite an example of the accusation hurled at President Lincoln. Anyone?

Since I have inferred, by my declaration that the question was asked in honesty, and, thereby expected honest answers, I thought it would be prudent [honest?] to explain the why of my decision on the point that generated this topic: the debate, https://www.debateart.com/debates/3021-audio-vs-visual-effects-for-movies

with Undefeatable, in which I declined his query to tie the debate [see his comment #6] instead of continue. Here's my reason[s]:

1. I do not willingly initiate or accept a debate with the intent to tie, or lose. I am a competitive sportsman. I play to win, acknowledging that loss is possible, but still only by a full effort.

2. I refer to my opponent's profile in which he says [as rule #2]: Never give up or forfeit. I read that as declarative and exemplary of my intent: win, or lose. 'Tie' is not spelled either way. Nor is cancelling the debate, which is another alternate consequence. Tie is a voter's choice. I take a member at their word, unless there is ample evidence to the contrary, which should be demonstrated and not assumed.

3. In my opponent's profile, he has singled out a few members as being either nemeses, or eliminated. Of the former, there are several names. Of the latter, I, alone am mentioned, but my opponent does not define what either term means. 'Eliminated' does not conjure any positive definitions, therefore, I'm not inclined to be generous with requests that would violate my reasons 1 & 2, above. To do otherwise would violate my own rule of competition.

This has been my point all along. YOU brought chemistry, but AFTER this entire string was begun by Benjamin, who put the matter in the Philosophy category. So, you've been in that category all along, but introduced chemistry. Specifically chemical, when the string is philosophical. Yes, as zed said, and I agreed, that philosophy is one of those topics that touches everything, even omelettes, so, we can continue to banter that everything touches philosophy, and be overly generic, or we can dismiss a generic discussion and be specific, meaning we don't need to touch everything just because we can.

Let's review your post #33:

Are you wanting us to believe you were not talking about the popular vote here, and then claim in your #61, referring to Trump:

So, according to your sock puppet, Trump won one election and lost the other. Care to clarify? The official, certified-by-Congress E.C. vote was 304 to 227. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016, whereas, this National Archives record says nothing to popular vote, but Wiki [an unreliable source by its own admission] will tell you  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

Come on; we're not idiots here. Try making a real attempt to be a history buff. This ain't it.

Yes, but since it was zed's suggestion that prompted my reply, and I find 

to be a bit cumbersome when I speak to philosophy, specifically, which has an entity that is a sub-class to 

I prefer the specific reference, allowing for the possibility of the discussion to wander...

Should the entire field find me, I'm glad to offer them an hour to discuss. Credentials will be necessary to begin discussion, because I will not bother with a waste of time with quacks. I have quite enough ducks at a pond near my home who carry on a more enjoyable conversation.

feel better soon

Though I've never been close enough to a rape case that went far enough to have a family member or friend be raped or accused of rape, so I have no personal bias on the matter either way, seems to me that from the victim side, if they act quickly after the incident, there is likely enough evidence obtainable around the alleged rape site, let alone on or in the victim [in either sex] to confirm a case, and so the victim ought to be believed once a formal charge has been filed from the victim to police. I could care less about the public at large; in any case, they are likely far enough removed from the incident to have any valid reason to believe or not, but, of course, they will have an opinion. Timing is a huge factor, and, to me [yes, it is a personal opinion] the case of Dr. Ford against Justice Kavanaugh, being almost 30 years ago, is just a little but to late in accusation to be credible. Believe her, when at the time of the alleged incident, she said nothing? That's a bridge too far. That's an accusation having too little possibility of there being credible evidence or witness. Certainly not her own "witness." 

Ref post #83

Is only just apparent that when an argument devolves to personal attack, and that is the argument of last resort, some on both sides will shut out further argument?

Shall I add the composer of #83 to the list of people on the Left who do not want success for everybody, in spite of the all-or-nothing claim of the topic proposal? Seems he put himself on the list. So be it. He had to ask. At least its in good company.

Not significant reader of Lincoln, are you? That side-with lie is why both Oba'a and Biden wrap themselves in Lincoln, But it ain't really Lincoln's cloak they wrap, and it ain't his baseline thinking. I see "KKK" on the inside label of the cloak those two wrap.

What, can't decide whether to block me or not? Hair trigger, yeah? Make a sticking choice.

It's in the Congressional Record, my friend. Going to say that's a lie?

Want more sympathy flowers?

Including the 1994 Crime Bill [even dubbed "Biden's Crime Bill"]; Joe Biden's one legislative claim to fame, which even Ds now admit was an abject failure they run from. Like they should have run from Hidin' Biden last year.

You seem married to "all-or-nothing." Pls advise where to send flowers.

Loopholes that the Ds have made far more hay, and imposed far more often by count than by Rs.

Everything? Really? Check the resulting House/Senate vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It passed the House 290 - 130

By Party, the following voted for the bill:

D - 61%  voted yea

R - 80% voted yea

It passed the Senate 73 - 27

By Party, the following voted for the bill:

D - 69% voted yea

R - 82% voted yea

Therefore, in both houses, a greater percentage of Rs voted for the bill than Ds, and clearly indicates that, even in a [then] D-majority in the South, they could not defeat the bill.

In the 19th century? The GOP was hardly in power in the South, then. And the R-Party in the South eschews the KKK today, and always have.

I've already told you. Please refer again to the entirety of my #35, do your own thinking and reveal the consequences. If you cannot think through to the consequences, refer to my #37.

You don't pay me to be your tutor. Please do not ask me to repeat myself.

I know you're going to tell me that White Supremacists were the core of the KKK, which formulated first in TN in 1866, and spread throughout the South. It does not take much digging to determine that White Supremacists, in the South, in the 19th century, were not Republicans, and really do not represent core Conservative values today. So, yes, the KKK is, was, and will be left wing.

Further, more in keeping with the thrust of your string, Isn't it curious that for all the bluster of the left being the harbinger of success for all, the left's embrace of socialism really does benefit only the few, the prideful, at the top of the pyramid, yet those at the top produce very little but for themselves, because it is simple to observe that socialist elites do not know how to produce for the benefit of all by providing jobs. Nobody poor makes jobs. I've never worked for a poor person. I've become well to do by people who had it, themselves. I'm nobody; I came out of middle class, in which my father grew, and taught me how to grow. I have taught my children the easy to learn, but often difficult to realize simple steps: ambition, planning, and execution, with one overarching principle: personal responsibility.

You have the full quote in my citation. Must I repeat it for you? No, I think not. That's your argument?  Succeed. You mean like saying if some have an accent, the best you'll see is a 7-11 clerk? REALLY? When are you going to admit that this guy is an empty-headed buffoon hoiw has lost the mind he never had?

Jill said he was centrist, but she's not a credible, unbiased witness. I look at Joe's own career as a politician - a long career. I pont to his many historic comments, including embracing the KKK. How limiting was [is?] that organization?

Joe Biden: "If you have a problem... you ain't black." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhcgmwj3NAc

For which he had to apologize: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html

Since Biden's mantra was that Trump was limiting blacks, he was telling them they were limited. Further, you'll recall his campaign comment of Blacks being nondiverse,

so, apparently all Blacks who voted for Trump, at least, are limited. And, meanwhile, he has favored keeping kids, including Blacks, out of school for a year. You asked.

I disagree with this all-eggs-in-one-basket proposition, and all such propositions. Easy target, but poor shooting. In the end, just a waste of ammunition.

Yes, some on  the left want opportunity for all, but some do not. Same for the right. Trying to include all into one side or the other is hieroglyph whispers.

zed, you'll appreciate that idiom, yes?

It appears you're both in separate one-on-none conversations over what is, after all, an insignificance. There are means to go around blockage, so, wtf?

I admit to some ignorance regarding elo rating, but, in principle, I get it. One question I have is:

When two rated players debate, and one is rated higher than another, I take that to mean that the probability is that the higher-rated player will win.   And that if the higher player does win, his rating point gain is not a large number, because the probability was his/hers anyway. But if the lower rated player wins, that player rises by more points than the higher player would have won. In other words, the points are transferred between the players, and not gained [or lost] to a generic points pool from/to which all payers either gain or lose.  Were you and I to debate [we have, a couple of times] the points won or lost are between us, alone, and no other player is affected.  And so, the greatest effect in rating change is between players who are closely rated. Are these assumptions correct?

I also just realized a sticking point I had. I think this is correct:  only rated debates assign points to the participants. Unrated debates score no points in spite of a win. I don't think I've ever engaged in an unrated debate. I don't see the point. Sure, the I-could-give-a-flying-fling is only effective for a non-competitive debater. And that's an oxymoron.