fauxlaw

hippies lived in communes. They were not communists. Communism pitted the proletariat agains the bourgeois, with Marx thinking that these were the only two elements of production of any product or service. As labor, the proletariate already had 40% of the gross revenue pie before Marx, and Marx [Communism] entirely ignores that R&D, production planning of process, raw materials purchasing and logistics, tooling, maintenance, marketing, and customer service are all necessary added elements of industry, and that the bourgeois does not take the other 60% in net profit. He's lucky to end up with 1 or 2%. Marx has no idea about running a company; he never ran one, which is why socialism and communism fail wherever they are tried within a half-century, on average. Further, show me the country that started with marxism. You can't run a country with the philosophy that you use other peoples' money to run the show when there is none but by taking over a capitalist systems, then run it to the ground because Marx never even ran a lemonade stand. 

Communes. You're joking, yeah?

According to whom? Your sock puppet?

life and death do; life and death of any organism

Difference is not opposition.

Why should I dare not mention Taosim? A little testy, yeah?

Not according to most Eastern and Western philosophy, with or without quotes. Want to try under the Northerners? Well, in that case, the blues were opposed by the grays...

poundmethomas has, once again, pounded too hard and too often. the pounder has no post #2. That one appears to be ebuc's. Oops.  Further, poundmethomas has not noticed I have not once mentioned the Bible in this string. And, yet...  Typical results of pounding. 

I'll buy that explanation.

Really? Assuming your tree is alive, a dead tree. 

Mathematics? Formulae whose elements do not equate, like most alleged syllogisms. Come on, is this a serious question? Go find your Tau to teach yin yang. The idea of opposition is so basic, it's a sidewalk trip.

The non sequitur you see is not, itself, rational. Plato argued the theory of conflict in the soul in The Republic that there were three elements to the human soul: appetite, spirit, and reason. Of the of appetite, that which consumes, it consists of two opposing elements: appetitive and aversive. Appetitive is a desire for that which is good [food, shelter, etc]. Aversive is an appetite for that which is not good [or, evil]. We are faced with both elements of appetite, i.e., we face opposition, even as the basic biological function of response to stimuli. All stimuli are either appetitive or aversive as relates to the health of the soul and the body. Thus, there is opposition in all things we encounter as living organisms.

If there is no opposition, there is nothing.

By making no choice, we remain on the fence, or, by another metaphor, tread water, or worse, allow the current to take us from where we desire to be, which amounts to an incorrect choice, and limitation of freedom. The choice not to choose to jump from the fence is, itself, limiting choice and freedom.

The correct choice is to jump from the fence and get moving. The direction we choose to move is the indication of making another incorrect or correct choice; or, let the stream carry us wherever it will take us, or swim agains the current to achieve our desired destination.

The determining factor of making the incorrect or correct choice is that incorrect choices always limit our potential. For example. I chose as a child to never smoke. Thus I am always free to change that choice, allowing me the full scope of freedom for that choice. But, knowing the many physically harmful effects of smoking, with very little to recommend it, other than a brief enjoyment factor. As long as I choose to say, "no," my choices, and freedom, remain wide open. Once I decide to smoke, however, and continue, thus acquiring a physically addicting habit, my choices thereafter become limited. That's no longer freedom, is it?

The only necessary evil I am aware of is evil, itself. There must be opposition in all things, so, that there is righteousness means evil must exist to oppose it. Our challenge is to either ignore, or embrace evil. By complete ignorance of evil, I don't mean that we should be stupid as a reaction to evil, but that we be aware of it and choose to ignore its influence while acknowledging its existence. On the other side of the coin, we can ignore righteousness and its influence. Alexander Pope, I believe, gave us the perfect description of evil [or vice, in his vernacular] by the verses in his extensive Essay on Man:

Vice is a monster of such frightful mien

That to be hated needs but to be seen.

But seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first pity, then endure, and then embrace.

Free agency is not a finite gift. Our reaction to it, however, will ultimately change to always making correct choices. In such a fashion, more will always be available to us as options because it is by continuous correct choices that our horizon remains wide open. It is by incorrect choices that we cause limitations; something we are not meant to have to endure.

Suffering occurs because there must be opposition in all things, and that is because God allows our free agency, even when that agency will allow that some will abuse others. thinking they deserve more, are entitled to more, or are simply willing to take more than is rightfully theirs. Counter to that cause of grief is the atonement of Christ, which will ultimately restore all that is lost by everyone who ever lived on Earth, and from those who took unrighteously will be taken from them what was given, unless they repent, and, themselves, by so doing, absolve themselves from the commission of their sins, particularly those committed against others.

As I have already said. Twice. But humans add the higher brain function of morality, which other animals do not express. Tell me how instinct is able to conceive, let alone practice logic? As you have presented it it in an alleged syllogism, it is not logical at all. So, perhaps your syllogism is more expressible by animals, but not necessarily humans unless they suspend morality and act on instinct only.

What did I say that contradicts? Many of the 5,000 just fed a miraculous meal of five loaves and two fish [that fed 5,000 - not including women and children among them] turned and walked away saying, "This is an hard word. Who can hear it?" They were not strengthened by the obvious miracle, let alone believing in the first place, which is exactly what I said. Without having faith already, and in utter ignorance, they walked away, unimpressed by the miracle, fully fed. So fed, so filled, yet theirs is hunger held in their father's furrowed history. Five thousand fed the bread of life, yet, hungry for their bellies' sake, had no room for eternity.

You are implying a morality tale. Ants don't do morality. They do instinct, i.e., there is no higher brain function that can determine right/wrong conditions to establish a moral ground. Therefore, ants [and animals in general, other than humans,  such as those you suggested] do not belong in your morality tale.

If or iff are useless words since they acknowledge only that which is currently not true. Then the alleged truth of what follows depends entirely on a conditional shift.

poundmethomas' welcome mat went flying long ago when the pounder first slipped on it. Been slipping ever since, mat or no mat.

Then stem cells must not exist.

according to whom? incurable by what standard?

Don't get me wrong. I believe miracles happen. But miracles do not occur for the purpose of convincing faithless people to have faith; otherwise, their lives would change radically, and seldom do they. They occur for the faithful to support and sustain their existing faith, strengthening it if weak, increasing it if already strong.

As if one can plug any values they wish into that silly syllogistic framework. No. otherwise, my favorite syllogism [of my creation] is true;

P1: Birds fly

P2: Camels walk

C:   Butterflies swim

Obviously not a truth by any means.  And most constructs of syllogisms by non-philosophers [especially those who think they are] do not hold water or logic.

I agree with Edge: your P2 is weak. Weakened also by your sudden inclusion of other animals; animals that do not [and none do other than the human species] have a moral compass guiding thought and action - instinct for care of offspring is not a conscious morality; it's the first word of this string.

Eradicated? According to CDC, and WHO, both of whom do not have a sterling track record for Covid. Seems similar organizations, and them, pronounced the eradication of the Plague... Just as biology pronounces the extinction of animals we later find are not so extinct, after all. All declarations of a superlative nature such as this I take with a grain of salt. "Statistically," [whatever that means - and I happen to know], is the equivalent of "probability" which is not an exact science. Neither is medicine, by any means.  When it comes to medical science, with my family's deep background in medicine, let's just say I have more faith in medical art than in medical science pronouncements of "eradication."

in medical matters, let's just say I have deep background; about as deep as can be had without going through medical school. It's been a profession in my family for three generations, it just skipped me by my own choice. The above ignores that the dosage of the vaccine is sufficiently low to usually allow the immune systems to make sufficient antibodies to prohibit infection should one contract the virus, rather than the full strength of the virus and not have any boost by a vaccine to sufficiently defeat the virus. And I am in the highest risk population, so, you may feel sufficiently invulnerable, but I am not, and I know it.

That s exactly what eternity is not. See my #15 to zed

Time is nothing but measurement. What cannot be measured is eternity. Since it cannot be measured, we assume it does not exist, because, in our misguided pride, we assume all things can be measured. The term "spacetime" is misapplied because it contains, in its own vernacular, the enemy of eternity: time. Eternity is what Einstein was talking about, so why did he call it "spacetime?" Even he could not take that leap of faith that it is properly called "eternity."

You have just demonstrated the ultimate truth that space and time, more correctly combined as spacetime, is really synonymous with eternity in that in spacetime, the concept of time, itself, disappears. There is no time, and, therefore, no beginning nor end. The prophet, Yoda, was right, as he told Luke, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." We are properly beings of light, having all the properties of light, and the consequences of light. At least, that is our potential. However, we can avoid it, if that is our wish, merely by doubt. We, ourselves, are our most vicious enemy, merely by saying, and then acting as "I don't think so." Or, in Luke's vernacular, before he understood what Yoda was saying, "I can't." To which Yoda replied, "That is why you fail." We simply argue for our limitations, when there are none but those we impose on ourselves. Impositions, like "time."

That claim is a bit cheeky. Inoculation [the process by which a vaccine is introduced, so the two terms are mostly synonymous] does not, by itself, "stop" a disease, but it does bolster the immune system to recognize and attack the viral infection to eradicate, or "stop" its progress. Is there is a distinction between "cure" and "stop?" The effect is much the same in the short term. Even "curing" a disease does not necessarily preclude its occurring again, so, in the end, what is really the difference between a stop and a cure? Example: as an infant, I had small pox, and having the disease, so it was thought, then, was as good as having the vaccine in childhood. Åt the time, it was thought I did not need the vaccine, and never had it, because it was thought that by having the disease, I would never contract it again. But, medical science has improved since those days [the 50s] in more fully understanding the body's immune system [not a great name considering what has been found] and now recognizes that I am not "cured" of ever contracting the disease again. Every five years, I am now vaccinated for small pox.

Most? According to whom? According to when? According to why? My friend, I'd like to know who it was that taught you that nonsense. Virtually every culture practices ethnocentrism; generally, people do not even understand why or how they do it; they just "know" another culture is different than than theirs, and assume that other culture is inferior to theirs. Many of them turn to violence to prove it. Assume - that's a bad attitude. You don't understand to whom you make the claim that Islam is responsible for your "most." Just by your statement, you demonstrate the ethnocentrism bug. Take an aspirin and call someone who did not teach you that crap.

Yeah, I know, having been challenged, you're going to find a Wiki article that tells you, and you'll tell me, otherwise. But, first check the accuracy of Wiki. You might be disappointed by what you find. You can always find someone, even an assumed academic, to tell you what you want to hear. So, don't bother; I've likely been at this longer and more in depth than you. I do research by profession. I know how difficult it is to keep weeds out of my garden.

A famous social experiment with a poll at the end using a sample size of three people. And you expect statistically significant accuracy out of such a poll? Absurd. I would question, given the circumstance, why 100% of the players with disproportioned resources did not win. There must be other factors involved  than just a selective distribution of resources that are not party to the data collection and interpretation. Some experiment.

Only poor reading/comprehension skills wold conclude that I suggest everyone should think God's name should be George of Dad. I merely inquire: does it really matter. What's in a name, after all? Some who smell roses smell the compost underfoot.

I appear to have a wider definition of censorship that you do. I do not see a distinction between censorship and ostracism. Both end up with a cancellation of consideration.

What content in Dumbo needs access restrictions but some idiot's view that something in it is not appropriate when nothing in it is inappropriate?

The "stereotypical" treatment is perceived by a guilty conscience that 6 year-olds do not have. That's an adult guilt. After all, the crows, particularly JimDandy, becomes a friend to Dumbo. Is friendship to be age restricted?

What Trump or Fox have to do with any of this is your insertion. Don't assume they are any measure of my attitude on this subject.  As it happens, Trump is no longer the President [therefore, relevance?], and Fox is not a preferred news outlet in my house.

Your questions all derive from your stated axiom that desire is not a choice. I simply disagree.

I don't know when I began to love my parents, but the choice to love them came once I knew I could trust that their advice was always in my best interest and not necessarily theirs.

What defines "good" food? I've always enjoyed eating food that tasted good to me, but my choice to eat good-tasting food grew out of a desire to make good-tasting food myself.

Otherwise, those choices are are not chosen for any reason other than desire as opposed to need. I need food, but need does not equate to desire of a purpose of eating good food. I need love, but need does not equate to desire of a purpose for love.

Circumstantial, like coincidence, is not a factor to me. I choose to amplify talents in which I find I already have unearned preference to act upon them. Anything lacking choice is merely wishing, but with no effort applied to achieve.

I choose to desire, and act to make it happen. Or I merely wish, and do nothing to achieve it.

You're missing the entire point.

Yes, I grew up in an affluent environment, but that has naught to do with my early desire to achieve. That was what I brought to the table.

Yes, my parents were high achievers. But that's them; not me. I made the early decision to excel in school.

Yes, my classmates also had abilities, and a few even had mine, and some applied for the same position. My demonstration, more than merely the application, made the difference.

You want people to be the same. They are not. Some desire more, some are more ambitious, and therefore, some will achieve more than others.

I've just realized my error. Member counts on debate do not count, I don't think, until debates are complete. Y'all are right, the debate status has grown 

I see an increase on the forum, but in debate, the number of participant members has been in the high 300s for some length of time. 

The point is, why is min wage such a avid subject? Isn't that like like tossing a penny into a wishing well, thinking, "I hope my toss gets the penny into the well?" If even such a toss is a challenge, no wonder people don't hope for, plan for, and execute the plan to earn a higher income than min wage. One will never earn enough to start putting their money to work for them if all they aspire to is min wage.

$1.60 in 1968? So... like I said, what should one expect of minimum wage but a simple wage for no skillset?

In 1966, one year from H.S. graduation, I earned $3.50 per hour working full time, and sometimes overtime, during the summer for the Santa Monica [CA] Board of Education, in line-art drawings for K-6 schools that fall, because I had a demonstrable skill. I even managed that skill in my senior-year advanced human physiology course, doing the illustrations for that class' final exam, in which I was a student. I cautioned my teacher that this would be cheating, because I would know in advance what was on the exam. He said, "You could fail the exam, and your coursework would still deserve an A. You don't have to tell anyone you did the illustrations." I replied, "I'll take the exam, just to preserve the lie."  Having a skillset, and getting a solid education, and reputation, pays, and it has always served me well. I've been in school for over 70 years. 

Censorship is the fundamental of cancel culture. So, as an example, we cancel Disney's "Dumbo" for a crow named Jim, only, "Jim" as a name was replaced by "Dandy," and in the end, neither "Dandy" nor "Jim" are ever mentioned in the film. So, C.C. has censored "Dumbo" for a non-existent cause; someone's wish balloon. Does that mean C.C. is a black hole?

Meantime, keep blowing; the balloon needs more hot air.

I am often reminded of a scene in Ayn Rand's "The Fontainhead" which features a momentary encounter between the protagonist, Howard Roark, an architect, and his nemesis, Ellsworth Toohey, a newspaper columnist. Toohey, in embarrassing pride, asks Roark, "What do you really think of me?" Roark replies, "I don't think of you."

Not a matter over which one should wrap one's self around the axle. It's a name. one of many God bears. "I AM" is another people spend countless, and mostly useless hours trying to figure out. Would one be so concerned if it turns out his name is also George? I'm somewhat partial to "Dad." It's a personal relationship, and that's all that it means or matters to me.

A discussion of min wage is meaningless unless the entire field of variables is an agreed set.

Is it for one person, as originally conceived by the U.S. Fair Labor Act of 1938?

Should it be defined by [i.e., float with inflation rate, some other factor, or be a constant?

Should it be one value, nationwide, by State, or what?

Should it assume a 40-hour work week, or less, or more?

Should it be established on a no-skill basis, or on what other expectation of demonstrable skills?

There are probably other factors

What's anecdotal is the myth that nobody has a path out of failure and poverty. Does it take more than one? But, to satisfy your lack of interest to do your own reasearch:

Billionaires who grew up poor, in no particular order:

Oprah Winfrey

Howard Schultz [Starbucks]

Ralph Lauren [fashion]

Larry Ellison [Oracle]

Finis Conner [Seagate, Conner Peripherals - who I personally worked for]

Sheldon Adelson [las Vegas hotelier]

J.K. Rowling [author]

Alan Gerry [Cablevision]

Kenny Troutt [Excel Comm]

George Soros [investor]

How about from ordinary middle class:

Stephen Jobs

Bill Gates

Jeff Bezos

Elon Musk

Andrew Carnegie

Pierre Cartier

Takes all kinds. What one lacks in parentage should not deter one from being able to look in the mirror and say, "Not me, Jack. Go hold back somebody else." Nothing like taking personal responsibility. Going to find some excuse for lacking that?

Just the experience of Ben Carson says otherwise. A wise parent can help ambition grow and results will follow. In his case, a very wise mother, who, though illiterate, yet went through the motions of checking his school work, sufficient to impress him that she cared enough to do so, and thus encouraged his ambition to flourish. What makes his experience different? Ambition, and the will to make it thrive. Who cannot do that? Only people who let their mirror dictate their failure.

Nope. Not if they do not contribute, personally, to the increase of that wealth. They are, themselves, freeloaders, riding on the backs of others, even if that is their parents. I hold little regard to freeloaders, rich or poor, because both have the potential to do their own work, but, some do not. 

I grant you that the numbers of the poor who remaIn poor, for whatever reason, are numerous, but, it is not an exclusive result. You say "statistically," but, there are "statistics" demonstrating that the opposite does occur: there are examples of poor people who, by their own desire to advance and succeed, do so. That the stats show this to be a minor result by comparison, notwithstanding, it does occur, meaning that it can occur. I believe the simple lack of higher incidents of the succeeding poor is a personal lack, one by one: Ambition. It was the first principle my father taught me and my older brothers. Ambition, planning, and execution. On that three-legged stool I declare the course I have followed to be successful. I'm nobody special; I had no advantages but that being in a family that has, since 1625, when my first, direct, paternal ancestor came to America from France and then Scotland, arrived in Boston to start a new adventure. He started an iron foundry.  My grandfather was an educator and a writer. My father was a hospital administrator. I was an engineer; I am a writer and illustrator, and a properties owner. Diversity is a beautiful thing.

Yes, kind of like wanting to tear down historical statues. Cancel culture has been around a long time.

And so has virtually every President since Washington, including Washington. The argument of "executive privilege" has been waged since Washington.  Add to the fact that Trump's yearly average of EOs was about 50 per year, and Biden is on track to write over 380 in his first year [if he survives that long], which is already more than Trump wrote in his entire 4 years, if Biden continues as he has begun. So, let's be open-eyed about who uses Eos to govern. To an extent, they all do. So, singling out Trump is a common, but factually inaccurate singularity. Be aware of history, and it may calm you down.

The context desired was offered, and ignored. I mentioned others who were never identified by name who yet performed good works, so the offered notion that this particular unnamed healer was a singularity of Jesus ignoring who he was, or, if he knew him, did not mention him by name, is not a singular occurrence. Is that not contextual reference? Oh, by the way, the two men crucified on either side of Jesus, one of whom, by his faith, was told he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day, were named.... who were they, again?  And the angels who appeared to Mary at the tomb of Jesus, and declared that he was risen.... what were their names??? Your context is that every player on the biblical stage is not named. But, only a serious read of the entire performance from curtain rise to its fall in the final act will recognize that there are more players not named than named.