fauxlaw

Darwin? White colonial? Darwin was pure British, not colonial. Careful how you throw your bias around. And either you disagree with Darwin, or you don't. Sounds like you're willing to climb the first few branches of the tree.

Were we human, in the trees? At them, picking fruit, yes, but not in them as residence. Mind you, I don't buy the entire Darwinian descent from apes argument. I do buy that we have the closest DNA match to our ape friends compared to other animals, but I think that is just a design feature of the structure of DNA. Where visible features are similar, so goes the DNA, and not that this is evidence of familial relationship by genetic transfer. We must recognize, after all, that our DNA is 97% similar to every other animal and plant life form on earth, and I don't hear anyone saying we are genetically related to those trees from which some claim we physically descended as apes. That those trees use the same basic design elements of four consistently used amino acids, fine, but it makes much more sense to me that it is all the design of an incredibly sentient being on whom we have hung the moniker, "God." He chooses to call himself "I AM." perfectly appropriate. So are we.  So we will become.

Not so much. Father Madison also told us that if men were angels, we would not need government. Sadly, that has not changed, because we still are not, and are very likely further down the road of non-angelic than 200 years ago.

Perhaps, but a strict read of the 1A does not conclude that. Further investigation reveals that Tom Jefferson may have been a proponent, and he referenced Roger Williams in 1644 as the advocate of the idea. However, while Madison was writing the Bill of Rights, Jefferson was separate from Church and State as Minister to France, so he had no input to Madison other than Madison maybe being aware of Jefferson's thoughts. They were, by then, in a mentor/novitiate relationship. Madison's own thinking on the subject is quite clear, however. In a later letter written to a Rev. Jasper Adams in 1832, Madison argued for intersections, not a separation between church and state. Where they both work for the common of of the citizens, they should cooperate, which was essentially a salient point in Brown v. Board of Education [1954] wherein SCOTUS found no issue with school buses taking children to both public and religious schools.

A review of Salixes' profile demonstrates anything needed to be known of motivation to ban religion. Atheism is Salixes' creed. And....?

You allege there was an impeachable crime committed. You allege no one cares how that crime was investigated by the House. No one? I CARE! 

Get it?

The House alleged, but did not bother to investigate correctly, and the Senate concluded there was no crime committed and, therefore, acquitted. How is it that you conclude the Senate was wrong? See the mirror? It reflects back on you. the burden of proof, my friend, is yours, not mine.

s I said, preceding the above with "if" just says none of it is true. 

First, A simple read of the House Rules of the 116th Congress would reveal that House were were NOT properly followed. House committees, by Rule [House Rules of the 116th Congress Rules X and XI], and by Supreme Court precedent [[U.S. v. Rumley [1953], [Quinn v. U.S. [1954], and Watkins v U.S. [1957]], cannot arbitrarily begin investigation, or issue subpoenas, by their own recognizance. They must obtain full House approval by majority vote. Having failed to do so, the entire House impeachment investigation in both impeachment efforts by several committees was entirely and completely invalid. 

Second, there was no Senate conviction in either impeachment. Done.

All it takes is a little research instead of listening to your biased news sources who know squat about the proper functions of Congress, or the law. Apparently, neither do you. RESEARCH. It's what you do. Well, it's what I do. Double R: Read and Research. Apparently, that's not what your moniker is.

"if" is useless word when it acknowledges only that which is not currently true.

Regardless what most people agree when the Supreme Court precedent, as I said, has already mandated how and when, and by what action either house of Congress may "investigate" anything. The word, by the way, does not exist constitutionally. The function of Congress is clearly laid out in Article I. Show me "investigate." 

Show me, then, why Hidin' Biden ultimately agreed, by April 2020, that the travel ban was necessary.https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/joe-biden-trump-china-coronavirus/index.html

Correct, you cannot have it both ways, which is why Biden admitted he was wrong to criticize the ban. What does OWS have to do with it?

In keeping with the string theme:

Joe’s Hair
 
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin, give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
 
©2019 by fauxlaw

when you think of all the potential sitting under some of that hair, aren't you glad there isn't?

This is a discussion? Looks like more pounding to me. Sorry for the book.

Mindless sheep? Nope. I am not catered to... contrary to your claim. I made my wealth. Me. Alone. By my effort. I invest in me, putting my money to work for me rather than merely working for it paycheck to paycheck. I pay me. I gained no advantage due to Trump not available to anyone else of like mind.

I read voraciously, on any manner of subjects.  I do not watch Fox. I do not watch Newsmax. I don't watch CNN or MessNBC. I don't watch much of anything. I don 't engage much in social media. It is mostly a waste of my time. I am not a mind-numbed robot. I choose my lifestyle. I don't engage in stupid activities or consume stupid stuff. I am prepared for just about any consequence but direct nuclear attack. I don't need to fret about empty shelves. I can live off the grid if need be for many months, even without city provision of water. I've been preparing for calamity for 30 years.  Several times in my lifetime, due to circumstances beyond my control, I've needed to dip into that self-preserved stockpile. I no longer engage in many circumstances beyond my control; I control them. When I cannot, I don't worry about it. 

Any other mindless accusations?

1. Neither impeachment of President Trump in the House was conducted according to House Rules, established by the instigator of both actions; the Speaker of the House, herself at the beginning of the 116th Congress in 2016. Both actions violated several of the House Rules, which I have defined in this Forum in other strings, and need not repeat here. Further, neither action met the requirements of congressional investigation as established by precedent of the Supreme Court in at least three separate decisions imposed by the Supreme Court, also defined by me in other strings, and will not be repeated here. Subsequently, the Senate, in both cases, dismissed the House actions by acquittal. What crisis?

2. Horrendous handling of Covid by President Trump? Who imposed a critical travel ban restricting entry into the United States from hotspots around the world where the virus was expanding rapidly, and opposed by your current President until he admitted the wisdom of the ban?  Further, who initiated Warp Speed, by which research, testing, and eventual production of vaccines was accelerated above all previous efforts of production and distribution of vaccines? Moreover, who initiated use of hospital ships, expanded and created medical centers where none existed previously to confront expansion of the virus which were subsequently poorly used by local administrators in hot spots where, otherwise, expansion might have been reduced? President Trump. And who, conversely, complained, criticized, and generally discounted those efforts? Your current occupant of the White House, in purely political overtones, having naught to do with the crisis, itself, but with his political whip.

poundmethomas thinks so little of women. party favors? typical of a bible-pounder. 

All one has to do? Sorry, your paradigm does not fit, but then, we tend to congregate with those of similar feathers, don't we? And yet, politically, there are so many different feathers, one cannot see the forest for the trees.

Again, according to whom of any consequence who has a drone above the forest and can see for the rest of us without some bias [as in "all one has to do."] Where's your drone? We don't need to worry about mine; I'm not the one making a broad-stroke brush comparison.

I'm actually not surprised that one of the things poundmethomas has not yet figured out is that the only thing that counts for the frequent buzzing around the head, a fair number of our heads, to tell the truth, is that our heads are swelling with the number of mentions the pounder gives away. I suppose I should be grateful for the stats. Frankly, though, I'd rather they be padded by legitimate interest. Well, I didn't write the rules, and pounder certainly does not read them; the same attitude as is had about the book he is always pounding. It has the highest stats of all.

Oh, I get it. Claims of reading do not account for understanding. Any simpleton can read.

Joe Biden couldn't handle his own premature efactulation crisis.

Do I suppose the half of the GOP who allegedly do not want to be vaccinated are the same half that are deplorable? Or is it the other half? And according to whom?

Somebody's half-arsed sock puppet?

I am wondering why poundmethomas is so entrenched on a fool's errand?

That is not yet enough hot air to keep your wish balloon filled. Keep blowing.

Yeah? Well, my 5th great grandfather served the US Army Balloon Corps in 1775 at Area 1, aka today: BOS, where my first immigrant ancestor, my 9th GG, arrived in 1625 from Scotland, and 6 centuries before that from France, via knighthood from Guilluame le Conquerant. Trump knew what he was talking about.

Who?

double-speak. this is that, but first... why bother?

Questions:

1. I understand the relationship of your values 1, 2, 3, but what makes value #1 the absolute Pi-time value? And what is that value supposed to represent other than a random number you say is absolute? What is Pi time, other than the time of day of a digital clock: 3:14 [which, replacing the colon with a period is the first three digits of the value of Pi]? And, so what? 

2. Using the 7th numerical position in all values just because two values [#4, #6] have sevens in that seventh position seems a random decision. See my concluding remarks. You also happen to have twos in the 5th numerical position in two values [#1, #2]. So?

3. You bring to the table the Fibonacci sequence, which always begins the count at 0, so why make it variable?

45. The Fibonacci sequence not only advances by adding the previous and last number, but also happens to advance by variable, and continuous advance toward the golden ratio, 1:1.618, a significant natural design element. Each succeeding number, running the sequence to infinity, advances the difference between each number in the sequence incrementally closer to the golden ratio value. But your resulting Pi^x  values do not relate to Fibonacci. Why not? 

Mathematics is so easily bent to cater to coincidence, that a standing stone in the Great Britain plain has the virtual exact dimensions of a former common sight in London: the red public telephone booth. What's the cosmic significant of that?

There is sufficient evidence to reveal why you find faith useless. Enough said. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. And, no, if you don't have the will research the definition of objective as a noun, I'm not your tutor. Go fish.

You did not state it outright, but imply it be your stating "human development" as it it has a beginning when, clearly, the gametes are both already human, and have the seeds of that special development already in them,

You miss the entire point. Yoda was not wrong. That response, "...there is no try..." is in reply to Luke's declaration, "I can't" when challenged by Yoda to remove his ship from the swamp by use of the Force. Yoda was talking about attitude; in another vernacular, "faith." Do you know what that is? No, it is not synonymous with belief.

This is the wrong string to reply to that question to which I have already given you the direction to find the definition I mean to have used. That string is "The problem of suffering." In. that string, my definition is hinted at in my posts #66, 68, 70. You do the rest of the research, but in that string, please. Stay on point.

That is all they do. But, they do not create life as it is already a factor before they unite. That's the whole point; there is no interruption of life. You're trying to say they are not human. What else are they? They each represent one-half of the DNA helix. Human DNA. 

It's difficult to not see some of one's personal donations to charity see its way to people who I feel are ungrateful for the donation. I, like you, do not need to work anymore, but I do, entirely for myself by myself. I have no staff to pay [I once did], and I donate about 20% of my current income, but rather than just give to charities, which put me in that realm of donating to ingrates, I choose personal involvement with those to whom I give. Someone nearby, with whom I can visit, and even do physical labor for, if needed, around the house. That way, it's a person-to-person relationship, not anonymous, and they are grateful, making me glad as well. It truly works and everyone is happy. I recommend the method as a satisfactory way to be charitable. To me, it's not charity in tyhe traditional sense, but, as I've noted elsewhere, an attempt to express the pure love of Christ.

I was one of those 50 million, in 1950, to survive smallpox. I don't remember it at all, occurring in my first year, but Mom said I was one miserable little bundle who should not have survived. I did, and bare no mark at all from it. Others who survived were not so lucky. Even though I survived it, I'm still vaccinated occasionally against it, now. I insist. Just had my second Covid last week.

What's to say the two-thirds are not one-half progressives? That pointed finger can easily point to mirror, you know. If you dare.

No prob. A bit cheeky to slam someone else with one's own mistakes. We all do, it, however. Our faults are most easily reflected by someone else, and it's difficult to avoid the recognition. It's why Jesus said to take the beam from our own eye before removing the mote in some else's eye. So, it is, as well, self-directed criticism. To me, that is.  But, glad if it helped.

Fine thing to diss Tarik for cognitive skills when you're stuck on one of several definitions of "objective," apparently even unaware it exists in two realms of grammatical quibble. A mirror is your worst enemy. How objective is that?

A goal is an objective in that it represents a stated means to achieve. Achievement IS the goal. The objective is the means to do so and the accomplishment of it. No philosophy, just pure doing. "Do, or do not," said the prophet, Yoda, "there is no try." Subjectify that.

You ask why I do not respond to "biblical axiom discussion." You would notice, if you bothered to stop pounding long enough to notice, that I do respond to discussion. Your's is not discussion, which is typically on-point, direct, and BRIEF. You would not know brief if it were bunched at your crotch. Pounding pontification. No. pounding, premature efactulation. Go satisfy yourself; it's not my job.

I do not desire more Biden air time. The man frankly does and has always bored me to tears. Yes, he can read off a TOTUS, now with some difficulty, but answering questions from the media live and in person befuddles him to no end, now. He is an incompetent man, let alone a President. Just the other day, he referred, again, to his VP as "President Harris." There are signs around the White House telling folks within, as if they needed the reminder, that the administration is the "Biden-Harris administration," not just the Biden admin. The reminder is for Biden; nobody else needs it.

Your source? 

Misleading, because there is not just one type of presidential news conference: solo, and combined with additional contributors. Solo, yes, he held one, but had 20 others with other contributors in his first year.https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/presidential-news-conferences

To date, with two months in office, Biden has written more EOs than Trump did  in one year. In fact, historically, Trump is just average in numbers of EOs written. Try again.

You’re taking the discussion out of the original factors first noted:

1. Human development: you ignore the extant gametes, which are already human and nothing else, and already alive, nor can or will they be otherwise prior to conception.

2.  Morality and rights have naught to do with the subject at hand.

That's because while you are focused on the adjective, I mean the noun. Same word, different syntax and, therefore, meaning. As I said, you're hung on philosophy. All well and good, but the discussion is on the concrete subject of suffering, and there are objective [n]  solutions.

You are too focused on your philosophic bend. Ease up, and recognize there's a real world of whistles in the street, and alarms in your ears having naught to do with Kant, or Camus.

A wish may be subjective, but a true goal, one that is going to be accomplished by the will and the means of the individual making it becomes very objective.

As I compare reality of the diversity of skin tones, color being one of the basics of my profession, so I know a bit about the subject, I cannot match any skin tone to the strict confines of the respective wavelengths we call "black" and "white," either in pigments or light.  It's all just generalization, anyway, so, why do we hang ourselves up with discrimination on such concepts? We should celebrate our wide diversity, not segregate it.

If one is impeded by extreme poverty, but is otherwise able-bodied and simply refuses to work for an income to get out of poverty, including getting an education to improve one's potential for income, but instead, chooses to remain poor and expect others to pay for living expenses, that is pure robbery of another's freedom.

If one must be coerced into working for a living, when, otherwise, that person, again, assuming they are able-bodied sufficient to makew a living for themselves, chooses to be a freeloader, that also is pure robbery of another's freedom.

Being able-bodied but unwilling to go to work, or get an education to improve working skills, is the denial of personal responsibility of every person who practices such irresponsibility.

For your saucers to be art, particularly by hanging an apparent non-relative title on it, caused a major rift between ordinary people who could appreciate art no more than deciding they "liked it," or not, but had no frame of reference to modern abstract art, which gave them nothing but what appeared to be tossing a paint bucket at a canvas, for example. We recognize that it is paint, and that's as far as it goes for lay novice in the art world. Your saucers might be compared to Picasso's effort of mounting bicycle handle bars to a bicycle seat, to offer the sudden, immediately recognized bull's head skeleton, except that your saucers, immediately recognized as such, and your given title, "Onward to Victory," offer no relevance to one another the lay art critic can conclude and say, "I get it." Another good example of truly good art is Rene Magritte's painting of a smoking pipe, titled, "The treachery of Images," with the phrase written beneath the pipe, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." [This is not a pipe]. It isn't; it's just a simple, accurate drawing of a pipe. The art is as much a part of the title ans the painting, itself.

By an abstraction, yes, they are all choices, including choosing to not choose. But, the avoidance of choice accomplishes and changes nothing for that person sitting on the fence. I therefore conclude by practicality that it is not really a choice at all since nothing will come of it. Nothing comes of or from nothing.

As I've noted to secular, I fear the discussion of opposition has sidetracked the discussion. Thus, my redirection as noted on my post #143

I fear you have ignored my other argument in order to be sidetracked by opposition. To repeat my other argument in my initial post #28:

That argument implies that a necessary evil does not exist; simply that evil, without qualification, does exist. What is necessary is to avoid evil in any of its forms. I consider any thought or action by one directed to the physical, mental, or spiritual impairment or obstruction of another is evil. As all are given free agency, wherein we are all agents unto ourselves, to impede another's agency to think and act for themselves, or for the useful benefit of others, is evil, and none of it has a necessary purpose.

And? I have read all of the Holy Bible, just in English, on several full reads, but as well all of it in three other languages. But creation did not finish in 6 periods of whatever length each. What, you think God created, retired and went fishing? So you have a Bible. I'm so impressed.  What else has God said, and still says, and to whom?

Ask poundmethomas?  Sorry, that's an empty well. My source is living water.

Opposition, like the force against the tendency of an object to move in a straight line to pull it into the orbit around an object of greater mass was not the invention of Newton in his first law of motion, but merely his observation of the natural phenomenon of opposing forces already in place and function billions of years before Newton was.

What do you think the medical profession is all about combatting? Opposing, if you will?  Don't presume, medicine has been the practice in my family for three generations. Not my schtick personally, but I have guilty knowledge. And, as Jim Morrison once said, "No one here gets out alive."

We don't oppose death while living?

Go fish.

Good intentions???

 The road to good intentions is paved with hell. Give me good results. That has proof, not intentions.

Go back and review the first few minutes of 1984's "Ghostbusters," when the Aykroyd and Murray characters regret the loss of their university grant in paranormal studies. Murray is nonchalant. Aykroyd, more practical, tells him, "I've been in the private sector. They expect results." Amen. Academia, like Marxism, is all bout good intentions, but the results? Ehhh.