fauxlaw

Rich/poor, productive/lazy

Oh, yes, it can be had both ways.

The rich can be so, and yet be lazy, getting no further, and in fact, can lose it. Or, the rich inherited it, and are lazy, or they earned it and became lazy

Or, the rich are productive, and increase their wealth, regardless of it being inherited or personally earned.

The poor can be so, and be lazy, getting nowhere, and, in fact, become poorer. or, the poor can be productive, get out of poverty by their own effort, and can even become wealthy.

both rich and poor can be lazy

both rich and poor can be ambitious

ambitious is good

lazy is bad

Αν όλες οι αλλαγές αποφέρουν το ίδιο, τι άλλαξε;

If all changes bring the same, what has changed?

Actually, the concept of the French idiom would make an interesting debate. Interested?

Simple: a free-market economy that accounts for all contributors to business expenses from design to after-market customer care, and all in between, and the uses of gross revenue to pay for them, yielding the appropriate net profit, which is shared not only with all within a company by employment, but to investors in that company by stock dividends. Each receives according to the effort and skill they apply, and NOT just because a Marxist thinks he's entitled, but has no understanding of how the complete business model works. Run a lemonade stand. It's a good beginning. I had one.

Once again, it is prudent to advise to stop cherry-picking verses. Read these passages in context, but also understand the history of these various writers. Of the Gospels writers, only Matthew andJohn are contemporaries who walked with Jesus, having personal experience with him. Both Mark and Luke write from second-hand - at best - knowledge, and yet can testify of the truth by their faith. In other words, one can, even separated from direct knowledge, perceive truth second-hand, through the use of faith so eloquently described by James in his epistle - the whole bloody thing, not one or two verses.

As to the dilemma of this "someone," that the apostles who were sent out to teach and heal by the authority and power given them by Jesus by direct ordination of each, may not have known who the other man was is of no consequence because he was still doing good work for a good purpose; something Jesus told them was to be appreciated. There's no mystery other than not knowng the man's name. Nor do we know the name of the man whose child, also unnamed, was healed of an unclean spirit by Jesus. Nor do we know the name of the contributors of the five loaves and two fish to feed the five thousand gathered to hear Jesus earlier in the chapter. Nor who gathered the twelve baskets of leftovers from that miraculous meal, nor the name of the person[s] who contributed the baskets. These details either were not important, or forgotten, or both, or neither. Not everything is a  hidden mystery, the discovery of which would solve all problems.

I entirely agree.

That's a good perspective, and I held back on my complete thoughts on the subject, waiting for an event I knew was coming, but had not yet occurred relative to a banned member who engaged an effort to uncover identity for potentially nefarious purposes. It is that kind of investigation of others, when not a law enforcement-based search, this is troubling.

Any teachers on this site who are unemployed, but receiving unempl. insurance, are you obligated to pay union dues out of those payments?

Or, is it not true that only ethically-challenged tightrope-walking members  use alts?

The whole idea of creating alts is a useless mind game. Who's fooling whom but one's self? Isn't it a bit like trying to build a house of cards, each card = an alt, but removing the stability of a questionable foundation by having to remove cards by ban, thus increasing the difficulty of keeping it all supported?

I'm disappointed that my Automation debate just engaged will end up a null because Bringer was banned and will not meet the duration of the rounds. Would anyone be interested if I had the debate deleted and re-challenge it?

plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose

the more that changes, the more it's the same thing. - A French idiom

The grass is greener on the other side of the hill.

Even when you're on the other side of the hill, thus demonstrating the above. 

I'm in my 72nd year. I can say a lot has changed, but can also say that it's been much the same, just different in style, but not much in substance.

Yeah, I'd say change is debatable. 

I, for one, find agreement with MisterChris. The fact is, having no prior knowledge of Wylted's alt's, and otherwise thinking that Bringer seemed like a guy I could and have befriended on this site, I'm willing to agree to a timed ban, but not permanent. Not that my opinion means diddly, but there it is. Besides, although I've seen the mention of a a permanent ban, I noted on Bringer's profile that that particular alt is given a timed ban of one month. Is that the way to read the ban? "Wylted," as a member.. is permanently banned, but "Bringerofrain" is just for a month? I hope that's the correct interpretation.

I am curious what people think are activities that are described as "a waste of time." I know there are many. One of them, to me, is spending time in discovery of who people are by identity. Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself; everyone else is taken."

I take that as wise advice. The best person anyone can investigate is themselves. Who else is as important? If one is investigating another at the expense of knowing, for example, how to research a debate proposal to see if it a good fit with their body of knowledge and ability to argue with that body, which would be, after all, a good exercise to challenge the self, and to accomplish a bit of self-discovery in the process; to do otherwise is folly. A waste of time.

Thoughts?

More mirrors. When one is surrounded by them, they end up reflecting nothing but that surrounded. Once surrounded, limitations pile up. Like dead flies.

Here is why they are exemplary of cancel culture, and it relates to my argument of c.c. is its attack on language.

1. The mouse:  The human nature of giving names to things is probably the first element of language culture ever produced. Words mean things; that is evident, or we would have never conceived of dictionaries. By extension, names mean things, and, just as we call a specific fruit an apple allows common understanding of the word, and what it means and implies in its extant condition. Thus, as we named things, and vocabulary grew, learning ,first, nouns, just a0s toddlers do today. Syntax, i.e., what a word means, and how it is used in context, is an ability toddlers begin to understand, even without formal education in that language. It is a phenomenon linguists are still trying to wrap their academics around. Thus, other types of words; verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions...  are learned, and vocabulary grows further. As we invent new things, we give them names: a rock, a club, a knife, a weapon.  And we learn what verbs properly align with these nouns, and we learn we cannot say, "I stabbed him with my club." Thus, we invented other things, a wheel, a lever, a...  Advance a few thousand years, we invent the computer, and. ultimately, peripherals, including a device to allow graphic user interface with the computer. We could have called it a guiper, I suppose, but, we thought we wold be cute to call it a "mouse" because it looks like one. We, therefore, ignored the potential to add a new, perhaps more descriptive word to the lexicon in favor of being limiting, and vague. I call that cancel culture of language.

2. 1619 project: by ignoring that the Constitution did not racially divide our 1790 Census, it attempted to cancel that history with the idea that is was racially divided. History is another thing that can be cancelled. A smart guy, Georges Santayana, told us that to do so was done at our peril of repeating history that should not be repeated.

I call both cancel culture. Cancelling the culture of words, not just people. As culture drives language, and it does, so cancellation of culture involves removal of its words as much as its people.

I am, personally, a victim of removal of a narration of my own poetry from YouTube because it's subject is Jesus Christ. Tell me poetry is not language

Hmmm....

I thought there was just a lot of pounding noises, like flies all landing on shyte simultaneously. Not to worry, folks, it's just pondmethomas finally making some sense. He faces his mirror and says to himself:

Ahh, fresh air already.  I'm done. Unfortunately, I doubt the flies are

The cited article does not make that claim; that is by my own research reading and analyzing the Constitution. It's easy to do, and I do so monthly for the past ten years, just to becpme familiar enough with the Document to have some scholarship about it. However, BLM does make the assumption, from their own website, that “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.” BLM, therefore, speaks of the entire Black race, don't they? Project 1619 agrees. It is not a leap to understand that both consider the history of the US is that all Blacks were ostracized as slaves, because no where on either of their sites do they acknowledge that there were, antebellum, free Blacks. The assertion continues, even in the words of Hidin' Biden, that "unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community." Remember? I will not engage grammatical quibble on this point further.

Good Lord, have you no sense of the content of the Constitution? That white men., white women bullshyte  is not what the Constitution says, that's what 1619 project, and that article I cited erroneously claim the Constitution says. Get it??? Read: Article I, section 2, clause 3. You will find no mention of "Black," no mention of "White," no mention of "race." That's BLM and 16519 Project-speak. Try to keep up.

When I first moved to the state wherein I now reside, I immediately saw a TV local news broadcast of the retirement of the school board superintendant, whose retirement package included the title to her company car. Well, I wasn't that upset about that item until the broadcast included a photo of the car: a two-year-old Mercedes 2-door coupe. REALLY? Is that the best use of the education apportionment of property taxes? I'm all on for supporting public education with my taxes, but I draw the line at that kind of apportionment.

Zut alors!  My automation debate is cut off at the knees by Wylted's ban [Bringerofrain is an alt of Wylted]. The debate will time out by forfeit before David's ban of Wylt/Bringer times out.  @#$!@#%!#$T@~

I will resurrect the debate if anyone is interested.

Wow. Just realized one of Wylted's alts was Bringerofrain. To bad; we just started a debate. 

As Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself, everyone else is taken." I guess that's true of everyone but alt personalities.

What one believes:

1. Do you believe the 1619 project and BLM claims that racism has a constitutional basis [i.e., that racism is found as an element within the language of the U.S Constitution in any one or several of its Articles, or Amendments]?

2. Do you believe "systemic racism" is defined as the existence of current federal, state, or municiple legal statutes, or any government agency policy, or any private industry policy that specifically documents acceptable racial discrimination?

3. Or is it something else? If the latter, what is your definition?

My personal answers:

1. No, no constitutional basis

2. Yes, that is the proper definition

3. No, not something else.

As most polls, particularly of a political relevance, are conducted so poorly, the "data" they produce is:

1. agenda-driven: such as assuming the Republican party, and Donald Trump are separate, distinct choices  ["fact" not in evidence],  assumes the potential of a Trump Party0 ["fact" not in evidence], assumes causes of the Jan 6 DC uprising ["fact" not in evidence] Poll question must be void of political bias to avoid invalid data

2. Derived from an insufficient sample size of  alleged Trump voters [only 1,000 with an moe of ±3.1%, when for that alleged population size, [74M] the minimum responses should have been 1,068, or, for a more accurate moe of ±2%, the sample size should have been 2,401

Such lists as presented by poundmethomas are merely evidence of specific anatomical retention that ends up being an exercise in premature efactulation. Pounding sand having naught to do with rat holes.

All species, combined, sure, and even a single species, combined, sure. But what of a unique individual, which is clearly of a single species? Even the potential entity of issue from two separate, but biologically compatible species, that individual is unique. The individual, of course, is that individual's most important entity. So, when did my mortal life begin? Clearly, not even at conception, certainly not later, but does it extend further back than my pair of gametes, joined?  I certainly bear traits that are not common to either of my parents, but were traits of earlier living persons than my parents.

Curious how poundmethomas will bible-slap others as readily as he slaps it. One wonders if it hasn't slapped back. No, one need not wonder; isn't it obvious?

Well, I don't know if Antarctica is cause of a guttered mind, and it does seem there may be certain lacks that might spell a bit of... boredom, perhaps [?], but if the gutter is a consequence of cherchez-whatever, I suggest that just because you're fasting doesn't mean you can't read the menu.

As a potential debate contender responding to an initiator challenge, is it wise to jump on a debate challenge that is feared to be too popular to assure your place as the contender at the expense of knowing before you engage that you have sufficient arguments planned - even if detail is missing - such that the rounds are adequately argued in the time given for each round?

On the other hand, is it wise to initiate a challenge with a poorly constructed Resolution that will be too easily rebutted by your competitor, or that has not had sufficient Resolution definition of words to assure your potential competitor has a firm grip of the Resolution's objective?

As a one-year "veteran" of debating on this site [not that the time is any gage of cutting mustard] these questions are serious considerations of our collective debating course and its consequences.

On the surface, I like your argument of conscious memory as a beginning, though it deviates a from biological life, which, although I have also introduced the term 'mortal,' my meaning of "life" is biological.

I'll agree to the broad strokes of your definition of culture.

As for which culture, your reference to Neanderthals is a good proposal, and I agree they were certainly intelligent enough to decide one's colored stones probably had more substance [durability, therefore, worth?] than another's feathers, and would argue {?] for the cancellation of feathers as currency.

Do you mean as a mater of reincarnation, so to speak? I'm not as familiar with Asian ancient religion as I am with ancient Egyptian.

Don't quote me on the specific 49-day matter. I did not consult first [I don';t immediately recall the passage exactly, or where it is] to determine the exact timing, just that there is a time period involved in the passage of the "ka" that is a significant event. If it's not 49 days [and, after all, "day" is a subject of some dispute in Egyptian theology, much as it is biblically with respect to the creation "day," which many Christians perceive as a 24-hour period. I do not share that belief. Rather, I prefer the Hebrew concept of "day" in the creation event as being a more generic "period," or an extended length of time, as is elsewhere noted in the OT, in  Hebrew, that a "day" as we perceive it is a thousand years to God, but even that "thousand years," as translated into English, is not to be understood in Hebrew as that specific length of time, but just "a long, long time."

I think I will issue it tomorrow

You'll see it when you see the debate. Do I look like I'm wearing a clown suit?

But the Tibetan Book of the Dead is also a manual for the dead, not for the living. Do not confuse "afterlife" with "pre-mortal birth."

my response is in my #195

I perceive, simply by a map of counties and overlaid political stripe by election results, that democrat counties are laden with heavy industry, mixed with residential, whereas Republican counties are primarily residential with light industry and retail trade. That, in and of itself, explains you GDP comparison. Do you really expect that the corner Mom/Pop grocer has the GDP of GM? Come on, man.

Well, let's not get to wrapped in The Book of the Dead, or, more true to a correct translation of the "title," "Spells for Going Forth by Day." First, there is not a single, this-one-only, codified text, as first translated by E.A. Wallace Budge [whose translation I have, in English, and in Egyptian hieroglyphs - in which I am fluent] much like that called "The Holy Bible," which really exists in multiple translations, yet we consider the Bible as "codified," as if it were something like an extended "Constitution of the United States." No, not so. Further, the "Book of the Dead," was never intended to be the equivalent of a funeral ceremony of spells for the living to offer the dead, but, rather, it was written as a guidebook of a sort for the dead to travel from earth life to their afterlife, spells to be conducted as they "travelled" to successfully pass by sentinels posted to prohibit further travel by the unworthy to make that journey. As such, your "day 49" is not the life at conception preceding human birth, but day 49 following the departure of the "ka" [spirit, or soul] of the dead person.

That's a great question, particularly in the sense that, although declared brain-dead, there is still life evident throughout the body, and there is for quite a  while. However, the entity that is human, directed by the brain, is, for practical matters, medically dead. Even the person who is, after a brief period declared medically dead,  brought back to life will, ultimately, die for good. By that experience, the idea of "life" appears to be a factor that is relatively immediate at its loss, even if that loss itself is brief. But, when or even if it has a "beginning" is a far more difficult matter to define to my satisfaction.

Patience, my friends. Rather than respond here, I am making the matter the subject of a debate, in which the whole argument in isolation will be featured. Therein is an issue: "in isolation." It is a flawed factor that figures greatly in why I disagree with all of you.

Culture is perpetuated more by language than it is by objects. Language is created by culture. Seems to me, the cancellation of culture is, first, an attempt to destroy language of a particular word or set of words, as if they never existed, as opposed to merely forgetting it/them, and as an effort to pretend the word or thing never existed in the first place. For example, the notion by Black Lives Matter, and the 1619 Project, that, in America, all Blacks were slaves, and all slaves were Black. Neither concept is or was not true, but the suggestion carries an agenda that is meant to be believed as a justification for the agenda. Self-serving in every respect.

A less-charged example is the invention of the computer peripheral device known as a "mouse," called such because, when invented, it was a wired device, which wire trailed from the front-end of the device, making a not-so-obvious comparison to the animal [the animal's tail is at the back-end] when, in fact, the the animal and the device have no relation to one another but for a vague visual similarity. However, the term is still used as a wireless device [without tail], so even that similarity is no longer the case. So one should not wonder when my grand daughter, now 10, asked me at 4 why the device presented to her as wireless, was called a "mouse." Perfectly curious question that can only be given a dumb answer.  Since I still had [and have] a perfectly operating Macintosh [classic from 1985], I could show her the original concept of the wired device. She, appropriately, said, "That's silly. The tail is coming from it's head." Zounds, the innocence of youth!

My favorite has been and remains oromagi, though not a conservative in traditional garb, but he has his moments. Frankly, the political place on the spectrum means little to me, anyway. Also, I see terrific improvement in Intell and Edge.

That is for hot-damn certain

No, you did not say A & B, other than cost of the load of fruit, is the same, and you completely ignore factors as I raised which do make a difference and are always possible factors. Your only similarity was the need for both A & B to sell at a profit [not necessarily the same profit]. But, loss leaders, for example, do sometimes help to gain that profit, as does accounting for countervailing factors, even if the similar product itself is priced either the same or differently. You offered a two-dimensional solution. Mine has three and four.

last December, I engaged a debate in which the instigator offered that there was nothing wrong with him owning me as a slave. It was theatre absurd top to bottom, front to back, and was easily waged.  needs more pounding before this pitiful effort will make a dent.

Which ever market thinks their retail price is closest to the bearable market. That may not be the $4k wholesale guy. And maybe the fruit is a loss-leader to acquire other sales. Nor have you taken into account the offsetting power of other countervailing factors.

Is it too early to predict S.B. L-whatever? Next year, anyway? I was bored with this one and changed the channel during halftime. Maybe next year, we'll have my clown choice for halftime. Never heard of this year's guy. Still have never heard of him, and I quit watching after that. Like James Bond movies, the music performer dies after that performance, at least by maintaining some status, and this was no different. Borrrrrrrrrring

I think the phenomenon is older than that. However, and interesting side note to the Athenian culture relative to capital punishment [not related to this string in any way], is that every crime was punishable by death.