fauxlaw

First, what is culture? Get there before any answer, or no answer will have merit. Have at it. I think the answer is older than you think.

Does human mortal life begin at conception? At the first breath of life [post-natal]? Sometime in between? At the first heartbeat? The first brainwave? At birth? Not at all [the simulation theory]?

Or is it before all of that?

1. Consider that the two meeting gametes, female and male, are already living organisms, even before they leave their protected residences.

2. Consider that, at least for the female, her ova are created while still in fetal development. All of them she will have over her entire fertile life exist, and are living before she is ever born.

3. Does extant gamete life somehow have a pause in life until conception, even briefly? No.

I invite your theories.

In such a world, some still manage to make a bed of nails, pounding each nail into sand, and that sand fills rat holes never ever conceived by gods in all their glory, who will even glorify, one day, those rats, who, in their own way, still fulfill the full measure of their creation, even when we may not. As for the bed of nails. Well, as a man-made device, it will corrode in time, and rats will inherit the kingdom of God, incorruptible.

I'm sure there's more pounding. the rat hole is deeper and wider than every grain of sand will fill, but that should not stop anyone from trying..

That's the kind of bullshyte that causes problems in the first place. What you characterize for convenience of argument as a Muslim ban is misreading the EO that you think launched your ban. CNN [and others] reported the full text of Trump's EO. CNN said of it: "The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law  concerning immigration visas as 'countries of concern.'" The text of the EO never once mentions "Muslims." It identified countries, not religions, or any other group of people by which they might self-identify other than by nationality. Further, note that the Oba'a adminstration identified the same countries, and no one, not one pitiful cancel culturist called him a racist against Muslims. So, why Trump? Because you have an agenda, but not one against Oba'a?

You're the problem, my friend.  https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html

Interesting facts on original Dumb release by Disney in 1941, all of which call into question cancel culture attitudes now:

1. The movie as released was rated G [G is for General Audiences — all ages admitted, meaning there is nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that the ratings board thinks woulds offend parents whose younger children view the picture.

2. The main crow's name was never mentioned by name in the film as released.

3. The main crow character was originally named "Jim Crow" in original sheets, but was changed to Dandy Crow as released. On this point, considering the primary targeted audience [children], who among them would have, a. racially fixed a name never mentioned in the film, or, b. understood that Jim Crow was a historically bad memory? Further, just a guess, but is it really likely that whoever first named the crow "Jim" thought through ramifications of such a first name associated with a real person a half-century earlier, and which just happened to be a bird with jet-black feathers when, c. the bird's presence in the film, leading a flock of the same birds, are friendly toward the main character; a baby, at that, d. "crow" is a bird species, and not a name in particular with any meaning whatsoever.

4. In 2017, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically and aesthetically significant"

And, as always, I will mention that the Constitution's 1A has the unwritten caveat, due to the freedom of speech, that we each have the right to be offended, but that does not condone censorship as a response.

Buy a house; that is an investment. then buy another one, and rent it out. 

Then, what's the point? I'm speaking of perfectly legal profit by rental of property.

How clear is that, exactly? You're going to have to describe exactly what you mean by "draw your first breath" by timing from conception, or even before, since the female and male gametes express all the biological signs of life that biology defines as "life." By that description, life doesn't really "begin," its existence is continuous.  Further, if human life is the immortal soul[ I happen to agree] why do you maintain it begins and ends at all. Don't confuse the life of the mortal, physical body, which it has, relatively briefly in consideration of eternity, compared with the life of the immortal spirit, which has no beginning or end of life..

As for a fetus floating in heaven, you're going to have to wait until you get there to know that for sure. You're guessing, and it's not such a great guess.

Meanwhile, here's a good read relative to mortal life: https://lozierinstitute.org/fetal-eegs-signals-from-the-dawn-of-life/  but even this does not account for the pre-extant life of the gametes.

After reading your source, I wonder if you did, because nothing about the description of "rent-seeking" refers to the rental of developed property to another person to use as a residence, or as a place of business.

As a matter of fact, your source stipulates that the concept of "rent-seeking" is to be separated from the role of a property developer [me] in the guise of providing that property to another for a price. It's in the second paragraph.

And as a potential investor in that corporation, you can share in that profiting. That is, you can if you consider that in addition to just working for money, you can put your money to work for you. By that tactic, you want that corporation to be more profitable. Of course, that means you may not be able to buy a boat, or an RV, but you will increase your wealth. Such purchases do not do that for you; these products are not investments; they're drains. Invest in yourself. Buy a house; that is an investment. then buy another one, and rent it out. That other stuff can be rented, and you're free of the upkeep and maintenance costs. When was the last time you sold a vehicle at a profit? In spite of my net worth, I drive a 20 year-old truck because it just continues to run. I don't need a new car every three years. My truck has more than paid for itself, and, in the meantime, I've been able to devote more money to investment in me. It's too easy and so many people stumble over the idea that working for money is enough. Really?

Wow. poundmethomas in top form. Maybe there's more in that fist. Ya thank?

Please explain, because history would appear to say otherwise

I would prefer thinking that most subjects of debate are not political. Therefore, why the distinction?

Stephen is circling, but missing the point entirely. He claims Thomas was allowed to tempt the Lord, but does not bother to offer that evidence. Instead, Stephen gives us Deuteronomy and Matthew, which both declare we are not to tempt God, but it appears Stephen lacks the understanding of what that means. When tempted by Satan, Jesus refuses to comply with any of the three temptations, because all three would have tempted Jesus, himself, to serve his own hunger, and tempted God, the Father, and angels to act on behalf of Christ for doing which were, after all, puerile tasks not worthy of his station. Jesus did not come to serve himself, but always others. Thomas's attitude, before seeing. Christ, was one of unbelief, but not temptation, and afterward did believe, and made no attempt to tempt Jesus, but willfully worshipped him.

But, I suppose poundmethomas will say I am a fool. Again. Another circular reference.

Contrary to the allegations of Black Lives Matter, the Constitution never raised a racial issue, and only mentions race at all in the 1868 15th amendment. Article I, Section 2, clause 3 speaks of representation of citizens, and a census, first conducted in 1790, which counted "the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."  The Constitution never defines "three fifths" as being only Blacks [that term does not exist], nor "Whole persons" as only Whites [also a term that does not exist constitutionally]. "Three-fifths" were counted as slaves in the census, who were not exclusively, even though a majority were Black. Some were Indians, and there may have been Asians, although that is only suggested. I can find no factual source. [BLM does not acknowledge this fact, nor does the 1619 Project, either.]  "Whole persons" included free blacks in the North, less in number than were slaves, nevertheless, a portion were entirely free and counted as whole persons, a fact B:M ignores, as well, as does the 1619 project.

Although not a Republican, by registration [independent], I agree with the notion of the sanctity of life. I don't even believe that life only begins at conception, because the female and male gametes are already alive when conception occurs. As I oppose abortion because of that fact, that life never "begins," but is continuous, I cannot abide the morning-after pill, either.

The notion of trying to overwhelm a woman's right to her body is likewise a myth because the individual creature[s] in the womb, including the tissue of the amniotic sac and its fluid, the placenta, and the umbilical, do not in any way match the mother's DNA; they match the fetus. They do not share blood; there is a blood barrier through which only nutrients pass. Therefore, the mother's "privacy" - a curious concept considering the invasion that is abortion - extends to the limit of her body, which merely contains the fetus and its associated external tissue, all of which comes out with a normal birth. It's a harsh comparison, but the fetus and its tissue is like a ping pong ball held in a fist. it, too, is "contained," but is not part of the hand. When the hand opens... well, you know what happens. Were it otherwise, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out.

So, let's understand the true parameters of this "It's her body" routine. For all the constitutional ties Roe v. Wade made constitutionally in its majority argument, isn't it curious that "privacy" is not once mentioned in the Constitution. The linkage was made by the most puerile of arguments. It's also curious, by the way, that four of the seven who sided with the majority were appointed by Republican Presidents, and two of the dissenters were Democrat appointees. So much for the alleged political stripe of SCOTUS.

Life does not "begin," even at conception, because the female and male gametes, themselves, are alive before they meet. There is not ever a time when life does not exist. For the female, in particular, she develops the sum total ova she will ever have as a fetus, while the male produces sperm throughout his life, or, at least, most of it.

Wasted food is the dumbest result of a meal there is. People will package their leftovers and stuff their refrigerator with them, then throw them out when they rot. i don't keep leftovers like that. I bought a freeze dryer to turn them into food of long storage [25 years] in ambient condition. In two years, I've freeze dried enough food to last my family for over three years. Plus, I have food stored by other mediums, including by nothing more exotic than sunlight. I may not always have use of my freeze dryer, but if the sun blinks out, we're all ice cubes, anyway. Or, you can throw up your hands and go to the food bank. Good luck if it isn't open anymore. I am my food bank. Be entitled. Come find it if you can. Better, be prepared, yourself. Oh, but that takes personal responsibility, and that's non-pC, isn't it?

Any other objections?

Tell me that people who used to make buggy whips were forever void of a new job when cars became the primary source of persona transportation. Only uncreative people suffer permanent loss. No, not just the employed, but the smart employers started making steering wheels and other components. When I bought a CMM [coordinate measuring machine], an automated measuring device for my lab to measure dimensions of parts, I could have laid off 3/4 my department. I didn't. I taught them how to audit manufacturing processes and suggest process improvements. I taught them how to calculate the cost savings, or cost increases on implementing their ideas. No person lost a job; I re-educated them into new jobs. That's what creative employers do. Some do not, like the buggy whip manufacturers who could not see to re-tool for automitive products. I can't help stupid. I will help ambition.

I think of chopsticks as merely the extensions of my thumb and index finger, actually, a greater challenge than the Middle East custom of eating with thumb, index, and middle finger, and at that, only with the right hand. I am left-handed, therefore, a decided infidel. Thumb and index working together, the sticks working to oppose one another, the thumb/stick rigid and still, and the finger stick closing on it, pinching the food. Note that the Chinese, however, do not eat rice in this fashion. They do not bring the rice to the mouth; they bring the entire small bowl of rice to the mouth and use the sticks together as a shovel.

Not sure I understand what gender neutral has to do with eating. Enlighten me, pls.

Don't try by eating flies.

Yeah, I agree with dropping a list of rules. The first, however, is a good consideration because I end up in too many debates wherein opponents accept without first organizing thoughts to assess if there are holes in the resolution that can be argued against it, BEFORE accepting. Also, I'd drop the notion of truisms. I never consider that at all. If it is a resolution that I can argue for or against, and my research shows I have at least a few dependable scholastic sources, and I can see the time to devote to it; I'll accept the debate, or initiate it myself. If I cannot meet those two conditions, I pass. If it is a subject that just doesn't fit my favored subjects, I'll pass. I like defining the key words of the resolution and use the Description for that purpose. Do it even if your opponennt doesn't [I consider that a mistake by an opponent] Last, be relentless. By that, I mean analyze not just your position, and nail it, but analyze both the arguments your opponent presents, but try to think of a few your opponent might make and be prepared to rebut them, sometimes even before they are offered. This is a favored oromagi tactic, and he is very good at it. Study his debates.  A mistake I often make, and am trying to reduce its incident, is to make too many arguments. They get muddled. Too often, a voter will consider it TLDR, and end up skimming rather than reading, missing subtle points. Don't make subtle points; hit them over the head.

Don't be too worried about poundmethomas. The childish nature of passing out fools like a blt sandwich is so bland and repetitive, I wonder if all that pounding has not been affected a bit by the poundmetoo attitude. To a pulp, I guess.

Regardless, an interesting question relative to male/female perspective. My point of view, which will send the foolbender right in to another hissy-fit, is that I have a Mother in heaven. Why not? If I am a child of God, and we all are, then a Mother, a goddess, is as likely as God is. Gender has purpose, and that purpose is eternal. Why is she not mentioned much? Well, first, last, and always, I look to Michelangelo, whose finger on the pulse of religion is about as unique as I've ever encountered. The Sistine Chapel ceiling depicts as it's center panel what is referred to as the "Creation of Adam." I prefer another name: the Creation of Eve. Here's why: Adam, for all his alleged importance, is at God's arm's and finger's outstretched length to create him; they are not even touching. Meanwhile, there is Eve, embraced into God's left shoulder, his arm protectively around her. She is even a redhead, my personal favorite of female hair color.  She was, after all, the last and best creation of God. That kind of regard can only describe God's tender emotion about his Wife, the Mother of all his children in the spirit. Mother in heaven is shown the respect she is due by the one person who really can. No, I don't buy that Eve is in that role; she is merely the type, as Adam represents the notion of "in the image of God" the Father, so Eve represents "in the image" of our Goddess, the Mother.

And, ere the cloud of the tempest blew,
His soul was with the world at play.
He looked to the stars, and the stars smiled,
And the moon in the heaven looked;
And, as he looked, he beheld her light,
And all the heaven smiled with him.
When winds and tempests fly,
When floods and fires fail,
As their wake doth meadow and fen,
Tis the man-child’s heart that craves.
And I — I shall be bound,
With the hoary-headed, strong, old,
To earth, and the graves of the dead,
Whose feet are mowed down, as they lie;
And I shall rest my weary head,
In the silence of Eternity,
In the peaceful arms of God.

****************************

Some journeys do not go where steps intended,
Mended on the way by chance,
By circumstance,
A dance to music distant,
Dissonant and unheard to some,
A discord to a phrase remembered.
 
What would harm the hearing stings the sight
And tears are drawn
From the dust of an unfamiliar path.
 
That is not a hidden path,
It is a road of stars.
 
That is not discordant melody,
It is the voice of God.
 
Those are not tears,
It is the rain of heaven.

*****************************

I'll let you figure out which is which.  My poetry. GPT3 poetry.

AI has been on the minds of people since the 18th century, without knowing what to call it [since they were not sure if it was a possible 'thing'] when philosophers first started wondering if human thought could be mechanized. The term, AI, was coined in the 50s. So, some 400 years later, and 70 years of knowing what to call it, tell me what AI has, on its own, invented. When will it bloody well innovate something on its own?

I'm reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode, titled "To Serve Man," about an alien species who came to earth and started taking Earthlings back to their planet. They left a book with us which, during the timing of the episode [one-half hour], but days, perhaps months within the episode's duration, we were trying to decipher the alien language, and finally deciphered the title, the episode title. At first, it seems a matter of service to mankind, by taking us to their home to teach us their tech. Nope, turned out, it was just a recipe book. Ha ha, jokes' on us.

Your fear of AI is about as funny as our deciphering the recipe book. If, in 400 years, AI has not yet served us with some innovation, I'm not too worried about the near future of our employment possibilities.

You see, in my lifespan, the tech I've dealt with started with a transistor radio I could hold in my hand about the size of a stack of smartphones. I had a slide rule to calculate mathematics. The hand-held calculator was introduced in my middle school years, and it was limited to simple math [add/subtract, mutllipy, divide] and was barely pocket-size. It was forbidden to use in class. I was born two years following the creation of the U.S. Air Force as a separate military branch. Going to the moon was a distant dream, but, when it came to that, we invented, from scratch, the tech to do in ten years. In my lifetime, the computer has reduced from room-size to holding more tech than that room had in my hand. I am blown away by what we have accomplished in just in 70 years. And you're afraid of AI? Heaven help us, we've lost our confidence.

Troubleshooting the failures. One of a million jobs.

Who made GPT3, again? And who, within 10 years, will probably render it obsolete? Who made the tech to go to the moon? Who made tech to land a rover on Mars, some 50M miles away, in a 7 sq meter landing target? Who did that? It was not ancient aliens, my friend, and it was not GPT3. Give it a break. We are infinitely more capable than any machine we will ever make. Go back to ancient aliens episodes. That's a crowd that shares your pessimism of the ability of man.

He does seem capable of signing EOs with abandon - mostly properly a legislative function, but, it is something.

I re-quote from my post #144:

Bold added, because, clearly, it was ignored the first time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_use_of_roadways. the horse, and horse-drawn carriage, are still legal as transportation on public roads. We, by choice, prefer cars, but, the former mode is still used today.

Why not? I did it by my own free choice. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. There are plenty of other occupations available, as well. That many require an education... well, what has been my mantra on this thread? Get an education.

Part of that limitation routine is believing what you've just noted re: GPT-3. Bullshyte. You apparently have no clue of the potential of human creativity. You're thinking is exactly like the joke the US Patent Office made in 1899, when it said in the NYT that the office would close at the end of the year because everything that could be invented had been invented already. Pessimist. Fear will kill you. Come on, man!

who said anything about a public park. See my stats in my post #142

Show me

Here's what I've found:

36M acres of wilderness in America. https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/2008/TABLE_7.htm

0.6M homeless https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report-legacy/

I'll let you calculate the acreage each homeless would have available. It's six times the acreage I have for each one of them. I think that is sufficient.

Looked at another way: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/america-land-use/

2% of land use in America is urban. 82% of the population lives in urban areas. I live in a forest [27% of US, and roughly 30% of US population lives in or within 50 miles of forest land]. Choices, my friend. Individual, personal, responsible choices. Not made for me, but by me. Get ity, yet?

Sure, I understand that not all acreage is livable. But what you define as livable, and what actually is livable when pressed, is greater than you think. We used to be tough as humans. Convenience has softened us. The tough will survive; the weak will not. That's life, bud.

I have been to China, virtually covering the east coast north to south, many times over nearly 20 years, preferring to eat in the little places tourists don't frequent. It's better food. News flash: they eat rice with chopsticks. Me, too. Who'd a thunk? Certainly, American censorship-loving elitists don't. Yeah, in restaurants existing for tourists they serve forks, and even the Chinese will eat with them, but in the little places, they respect their own culture. We should, too.

> RationalMadman,

In the very late 80s, I worked for a CEO of our start-up company that went from annual revenue of $120k the first year to $4.2B the fourth year; at the time, the fastest growing American manufacturer in history. We were the first company in the world to enable the volume production of laptop computers with a 3.5" hard disk drive, which was, then, our revolutionary product. My part of it was the high volume production and delivery of the miniature NdFeB magnets [aka "rare-earth"] driving the disks' read-write heads on the armature. Corporate was in San Jose, CA, with pre-release manufacturing in Boulder, CO. My magnet supplier was in Hong Kong, with a nickel-plating supplier in Phoenix, AZ. We needed product to flow from Hong Kong, to Phoenix to Boulder inside of two days, then back to Honk Kong for a new batch, repeating that itinerary over the first month of production to meet our exploding sales demands. The only way, then, was to be our own shipper. I presented the problem and the solution to the CEO. I was 45, the CEO had me by 25 years, and was a dynamo who had made and lost fortunes twice before. when I asked him to charter a jet to take the supplies with me on that itinerary, he said, "No, we'll use my jet. We leave tonight." He accompanied me on the first tour, SFO to Hong Kong, to Sky Harbor, to Boulder, to SFO, to Hong Kong... then turned it over to me, solo. He drove me ragged. As soon as I became aware of Trump's drive, I thought, "I know that guy. Someone just like him made me what I am today." Have any idea of the swelled head you get having exclusive use of the corporate jet for a month? Dizzying. Trump runs circles around Biden; who calls a lid for the day at 10 am.

Housing is necessary to live? Said who? We have plenty of ancestral heritage of living off and in the land. People who were truly self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency comes in many guises. If necessary, I have trained to eliminate all my comforts of home in the sense you understand it to return to that ancient heritage. Literally. I know how, and I know where. It ain't necessarily pretty, and it it certainly is not easy, but I know how to do it. So, who says a house is necessary to live? Bullshyte. Try re-thinking that entitled myth. If you're too lazy to figure that out, what makes you think you deserve anything else? Some things maybe you have not learned, and maybe you should before the decision is made for you. Then you will be up the literal creek and it will not be kind.  Get to work. I'll wager you have never been anywhere where you are literally no longer at the top of the food chain. Sobering experience. I have it, my friend. So appreciate what you have. Get to work to survive without it. Hint: that takes some capital behind your arse, and it's time to start working for it. 

UBI is a pitiful urban myth

Once I was an adult [18], that's right. I paid for my education beyond K-12]. However, I did receive an inheritance from my parents, shared with my brothers, equally. As for my children, now grown adults themselves, I have helped from time to time, but they were taught the same principles I was taught. They will receive a substantial inheritance, as well [more than I did], but for now; they're on their own, but for emergency situations, I am a safety net. I consider that an obligation because I can do it. 

No, not at all. I completely disgree.

Life is a right. Free speech is a right. All the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are rights. Wealth is a privilege, based entirely on one's willingness and ability to acquire it lawfully. Housing is a privilege based on the same factor. Personal transportation is a privilege based on the same factor, as are clothes, food, an education beyond K-12, health care, etc.

Remember, however, that I can afford the time to do this stuff with some abandon. My schedule is my own; yours has obligations, even to yourself.  Your education is the most important thing you can accomplish right now; don't let this stuff, educating as it might be itself, overwhelm your time. All in good time.

thanks

I do live in a house I built [paying others to assist, but it was my design, and much of my labor], however, I have lived in houses others built, but it was my money that bought them. My money that furnished them. My money that bought the food and clothes. That's what I mean by personal responsibility. I buy very little on credit. I have a credit card, by I pay it in full monthly; I do not maintain an outstanding balance. AZs a rewsult, I have an excellent credit rating, and can borrow just about whatever I want. I choose not to. I do it, so I know it can be done. I made sure to take advantage of my youthful opportunity to educate myself [I paid for that, too] so that I could reach higher in earning potential so that I could live as I now live. I don't own a boat, an RV, jetskis, etc. I rent these when I want them, which is occasional, but, in the meantime, I have not sold my soul, or my income, to maintain these luxuries. 

That's what I mean by personal responsibility.

Congratulations. Your improvement, albeit by a couple of identities, is obvious. But, "be yourself," as Oscar Wilde once said, "everyone else is taken."  Your former dependence on Wiki has gone way, way down. I hope I've had some influence on that. In our current debate, I don't think you've used it once. You may have started there, but you've dug deeper to direct sources, and that's great. One suggestion, even though we're in the middle of a current debate, be careful of using cited courses embedded in a source you've also used. Carefully review the embedded source to assure it fully agrees with the primary source. As a voter, I scrutinize such second-tier sourcing, and often find there is not the correlation you want to have.

You can tell I'm a great believer in good sources, and I'm disappointed that the Mods have seen fit to make sourcing an optional tactic in the new voting policy. Again, as a voter: fair warning: I will never make it optional. If an argument can be damn good without a source, it will not be hurt with one. My "damn good" is a high bar, and I have little regard, as a voter, for "It is because I say so." I've been criticized for that standard, but no one has convinced me yet to back off.

You mean, without having to ask people to give at least personal responsibility to to take care of their personal needs on their own if they are physically and mentally able to do so, but just don't care to be personally productive? I guess you are going to have to tell me why, just because life is a right, let alone the rest of your needs list, do you need life? I'm serious. Tell me why you need life. Your own, that is. As a right, you have it. But why? Do you need life so you can need shelter? Nope. Clothes? Nope. And so on...

I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action, and that is really what is at the root of the fear of discussion of some topics. If one cannot discuss what may make nuclear war good [can't think of any substantiating commentary at present, but that doesn't mean there isn't one], how do we convince that it is bad? there must be opposition in. all things, else we fail to understand both sides of an issue; any issue. Rather, we need to assure that our youth hear both sides of an issue. I don't think it's any healthier to indoctrinate youth with either side of an argument; let them hear, and discuss both sides.  How, unless we can openly discuss whether war of any kind has good and bad consequences and, by so doing, allow the conclusion to develop that nuclear war, specifically, may not be such a good idea. EWhen has ignorance ever been a good idea?

And, by the way, just so all sides of an issue can be discussed, what the hell is wrong with Dr Seuss?

BDS: the acronym of censorship cancel culture; a re-imagination of the left, by the way. All you have to do is listen to and watch the man without blinders.

“What am I doing here?” Says Joe after squinting to see his TOTUS, and cannot see it. And allegedly, 80+ million of you voted for this incompetent. Satisfied with yourselves?

Value is something completely different than supply. Show me the limit of supply. That value can vary is obvious, and that variability, itself, is virtually unlimited, but they are different factors.

In fact, Mods have backed off requiring BoP even in Debate, which I believe is best served by providing sufficient scholastic sourcing to substantiate a debater's ideas. Since Mods have changed sourcing to be an optional matter for voting purposes, I'd say your decree that BoP is required in Forum, let alone Debate, has fallen.

Were we n the Debate section, I wold agree with you. In Debate, a BoP is essential. I see the Forum as merely a free exchange of ideas. Free I the sense that I may choose to provide a BoP, or to merely express an opinion. In Forum, I see it as our choice, entirely. You have the right to disagree, but cannot impose either approach. Leave it at that. If you choose to disagree with my opinion, that's on you. I feel no obligation to prove any point I express in Forum, but I have chosen to do exactly that on occasion. Isn't that a fair description of a free exchange of ideas? Credibility be damned.