fauxlaw

Thanks, but, I, too [RIP Rush] have a voice on loan from God [very resonant], and do professional voice-over on occasion. 

Re: Forum Etiquette:

If I m not naming a receiver either in the heading or in the text block, am I targeting anyone, violating etiquette, or making general comments to the membership as a whole?

Based on the above, I'm going to guess that Bringer prefers a band from the 50s known as Empty Reel [as in an empty reel of recording tape]. Maybe they've been remastered digitally to produce an empty CD.

All the above tongue-in-cheek, so to speak. I've not yet put any of my non-fiction on audio, yet, but I see a challenge. 

Notice to caring members:

The DArt Forum is designed as an open-session vehicle for all members to engage in discussion according to their whim, as long as that whim is in the guise of generally recognized tasteful language. No one "owns" a forum topic to the exclusion of use by any other members, although there are means to address members' misuse of the forum. It is not achieved by asking members to "get off." [I suppose there's paronomasia there, but we'll ignore that] I refer all members to the Help Center. Find the matter on your own. Research is good for the soul.

And you blame God for "quality control?"

We passed "quality control" by Walter Shewhart at Bell Laboratories in the 1920s in favor of statistical process control and subsequence "quality assurance." The main point was that we do not inspect quality into a product; it is simply built correctly the first time by understanding failure modes and working to prevent them in the first place rather than merely inspect for them, but do nothing toward prevention, or perfection.

But none of that relates to God because he did not create a perfect world, and there was wisdom in that because we cannot just be perfect without our own efforts in the matter. Otherwise, of what use is free agency, which is a necessary step [steps] of passage to achieve perfection on our own? That is why an imperfect world, with its naturally occurring flaws, was created. Could God have created a perfect world? I suppose, but then, again, what of free agency? That is, to figure this stuff out on our own by learning what works and what doesn't ourselves. God does not want or need a bunch of yes-men. He wants children who learn and grow to become like him by their efforts, failing though they sometimes are. Hopefully, we learn sufficient to make fewer and fewer errors.

Seems I have a pair of members who, by some unknown and uncited regulation on this site, believe they can order my compliance to their will. As a member of full standing, and, acknowledging that neither of these members is a Mod, it is my firm conviction that I do not march to these discordant drums. Pound away, my friends. I stand on my statements as given. I have merely challenged to read, and read completely and with some frequency. It is how most learning is accomplished, after all. If one seeks wisdom, it is, after all, a first step. There are others, but, lest pearls are cast before the unappreciative, let us avoid particulars until the first of a thousand steps is taken.

True, I did say that. What I meant, and should have said, was a slide from cisgender, i.e., gender as designated at birth; be it male, or female. I used the term 'genetic' as a historic recognition that 'gender' was always just male or female.

Having charged anyone as me, who is a student of Greek [meaning, of course, when one has a clear head, that I am educated in the Greek language] to answer his question, but then blocks my direct answer to him, has not desired that I answer his question, but blocks my answer. Therefore, the answer will not be offered by any other means than that already offered: Do not pick and choose verses at random by search words that can, and do, lead one astray, as would one pick and choose a meal in a cafeteria, not desiring to have the entire feast available, but seek only to pick cherries [rank cherries at that], so is the seeker who does not read the whole of the body of scripture to understand them himself. So be it. Pick and choose, and be ignorant of the whole.

Your source from the APA highlights the disparity in educational achievement by children of SES parents. No doubt, an inadequate diet has obvious effects on achievement of educational advantages, but is that society's fault, or the parents? Parents, as well as students, have to do more thinking about what their own ambition level is when they are deciding, before being parents, how their life choices in school will play the significant role in their adult, parenting requirements. When parents assume society will pickup the slack in their own lack... well, we see the result. No APA whizbang academic will overcome that simple advice.

You raise disadvantages such as "...race, height, beauty - whatever it is," but ignore a factor that has historically overwhelmed all these regardless of station, or, as you put it, "class:" Ambition. We either have it, or we don't, and we are individually completely in charge of that factor. No one else can give it to us; no one should, but for our allowance of it, take it away from us. My father taught me three basic principles of life: 1. Be ambitious, 2. plan, 3. Execute the plan. Repeat it. It has served me well. I inherited $10,000 from my father 20 years ago. My two brothers & I, when my father retired, encouraged he and our mother to use the finances they worked hard to obtain to enjoy their retirement to the fullest, and they did. They traveled extensively. They contributed much to charities. They left us each with an inheritance of equal proportions. My brothers and I successfully plied our father's principles and are more successful than he attained, the least of us has turned our relative "fortunes" over by a factor of over 200, using those simple principles.

Class has nothing to do with ambition. It is a vital factor for success, and it is free of charge other than by personal commitment. The ambitious do not let "disadvantage" hinder their ambition.

Of course it does. First, I have to align with the side on which time does not exist but by human imposition. Apologists for time will introduce such terms as "relativity," but that is, after all, just an attempt to justify the concept in the first place.

Why is "succession" time-based? Because we say so. What if "succession" is not time-based, but accomplishment-based? I accomplished a thing. Based on that accomplishment, I accomplish another thing. Based on that, I will accomplish still a third thing. But my commentary of past, present, future,  and even numbering the accomplishments is still rooted in the idea of a time-basis. I could, assuming a god-like perspective, use a similar description as given to Moses by God when Moses asked him who he should say to the Israelites was sending him, God replied, "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." The simple fact of God's existence was sufficient for the proof of him. So, if asked when and how I did something, I could reply, "I accomplished this," and "I accomplished that," and the timing of accomplishments is merely secondary to the facts of accomplishment, and accomplishment is the appropriate measure, regardless of a truly non-extant feature of the universe.

To qualify my meaning, for oromagi's benefit, and to acknowledge Althias' defense of my position, of not just "woke generation" [which Athias correctly interpreted as not a age-related generation, but a general group of people who align to a particular label [being people of any age - and it is "their" label, furthermore] - my argument is that we should not look upon one another by any physical feature at all as a matter of segregation or discrimination, thinking that any feature exhibits some superiority on one over another. AS I have cited somewhere [don't recall where at present] according to Scientific American, the concept of race is not a scientific designation, but a social one. I would add that it is a errant designation. IMHO, it is dead wrong to engage such descriptives, and impose our infrastructure on that basis. Thus my belief that all demographics of that nature are useless, and worse, destructive. I am a 71-year-old male nose. Leave it at that; all other distinctions being societally and legally meaningless. I would have preferred the 15A, or any other Amendment, to say: 

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State" and completely strike the remainder: "... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude..."  And I would further extend that right on the basis of any other civic activity besides voting, such as property ownership, use of infrastructure, education, health care, or any other legitimate activity to which we look to government to codify. Who bloody cares how we describe one another, other than as American citizens? Doing so might have dismissed the need for most of the Amendments that follow, and they did so only because we seem able to find news ways to parse ourselves when the parsing is completely unnecessary to accomplish the goal of "...in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

Now THAT is "Woke" to me.

When did I say "gender" and "gene" have the same root? I did not. You are asking for that link. You are asking that feather and weather have the same root. Sorry, not playing that semantic. You have your own bag of marbles...

If I ran away, as you suggest, woefully, why am I still here? Getting under your skin, am I? You don't get it, do you? You could ignore, as I just have. Up to you, and always was, my friend. I am not your nemesis. That guy is in the mirror.

I agree; the 1st syllogism is false, as most syllogisms people invent are, having the same identical "logic" as my favorite [and original] example:

P1 Birds fly

P2 Camels walk

C    Therefore, butterflies swim.

All syllogisms are effectively a deceptively simple formula: A + B = C.  But the formula demands, as all valid [logical] equations do, that the elements on the left side of the formula equal the element on the right side, and most syllogisms just don't follow that logic, such as that first classic one  you engage in your post #1. If the formula does not work, it is fallacious, period, regardless of the language. The native language of God, I believe [and, Leo DaVinci's good friend, Fra Lucas de Pacioli, believed the same] is mathematics. Indeed, one of the early Greek interpretations of the word  'logos,' or ‘word,’ was “ratio,” as in, according to de Pacioli, the golden mean, 1:1.618, the ratio that is exemplified all over nature, such as in the succeeding chambers of a nautilus, or repeated numerous times in the ratios connecting various human body features, the shapes of leaves and flowers, etc.

First problem: The syllogism assumes a lopsided existence: The universe is assumed "eternal," but it is claimed to have had a beginning. By proper mathematics, a line is infinite in both directions, past and future, except that...

Second problem: There is no time. Time is a human construct that is not shared by eternity and God, because our mortal, finite minds have difficulty wrapping around 'eternity.'  God is eternal. That is, the concept of God is eternal.

Third problem: There are many generations of Gods, not just a single God. One of them is ours. That is, our God is the literal Father of our spirits, meaning there is also a Mother, who bore those spirits [or, perhaps there are numerous Mothers, eternal spouses of our God who have, collectively, borne our spirits as children of Heavenly Parents, just as our Earthly, mortal parents bore our physical, mortal bodies. We are intended to live brief, mortal lives, have existed as spirits before our mortal birth for eons [we don't know how long], and existed eternally as intelligences [unembodied [in the spirit], formless beings, before that. Intelligence, because we were aware, individual beings, but without form. And, following mortality, our spirit, separated from the physical body in death, will reunited with a perfect, timeless, infinite physical resurrected body which will exist as such infinitely into the future. Some of us, by our dedication to obedience to God while we are in mortality, will, ourselves, become a next generation of Gods and Goddesses, creating our own "heaven and Earth" to be populated by our spirit children. our God has a Father, and Mother, and so on -- with no beginning and no end. Thus, the cycle has existed from past eternity into future eternity. There was no beginning, no "bang," and there will be no end, no "whimper." Thank you, T.S. Eliot.

Okay, so our pitiful science has perceived, we think, a beginning "pulse" of the universe. Have we perceived all? What might have happened before that? Is it a cycle? And one turn of a wheel? Or, is it infinite cycles? Eternal is not a singular direction, boys and girls, any more than one can definitively identify the beginning of a circle. It is, rather, one eternal round. And perhaps we merely see, from our perspective, a circle, which, when turned to its side, were we able to have a better view, it is an extended, eternal helix in which there is no beginning point of regression, impossible to perceive because our finite pencils cannot be sharpened to the degree to witness no beginning at all. Turn ourselves around, and we face... no end at all. We exist now, somewhere on that helix, have always been ,and always will be. That's eternity, folks, and maybe that helix is not a single tube, but infinite tubes extending eternally in all directions...

Ultimately, no. At least, not when one agrees that gender = sex, as the OED clearly stipulates, social engineering notwithstanding. That is, I believe cis-gender is the only gender that truly exists, as I've said, psychology be damned. That said, even a sex-change operation, MtF or FtM, does not alter the genetics of that individual. Further, both testicles and ovaries are removed in a sex-change, so transference of any genetic material is impossible.

Yes, as I've demonstrated above #7

That wish balloon of your is badly in need of more gas. Keep blowing.

In fact, as you suggested, I do not agree with virtually everything you've said. I notice you offer no reference for anything, thus this is you own thunking. That's fine. I do not agree that God is androgynous. The key is that most of Christendom, and other religions, do not acknowledge the possibility that we have not just a Father in Heaven, but a Mother, a goddess if you will, as well, a Mother [or Mothers] who gave birth to each spirit [your "soul"] and we are, therefore, their literal children, first, and then children of mortal parents. Gender has purpose, parenthood has purpose, childhood has purpose, and these relationships extend into the eternities. 

Must I do all your research for you? Can't do a little inquiry of your own? What am I; a paid tutor? No.

According to the OED:

Do I need to translate lexographic syntax for you? That will cost extra.

I like your approach, not just looking at individualistic vs. systemic, but that something is accomplished vs how it is accomplished. To me, the 'how' of accomplishment is just as important, if not more so, than the accomplishment, itself. It appears to be a morality tale, of a sort. Maybe the term 'morality' is fraught with too much baggage; something like our discussion, and, frankly, disagreement, on definition of gender, for example. And that we disagree, which, is fine, I suppose, since we approach from different perspectives, is, itself, more of a matter of how we disagree than that we happen to disagree. perhaps the term ought to be integrity, but even that has baggage. I mean integrity, in this matter of how to accomplish or accomplish by any means. I think one has more integrity if they are more concerned with how something is accomplished than that it is accomplished by any means available. The "any means" camp would accomplish a thing without care for its consequences, whereas the 'how' camp may choose more amenable consequences and avoid a negative consequence, especially to others rather than themselves.

For example, If I want to be rich, and I don't care how it is accomplished, there are certainly ways to accomplish it, such as selling drugs, but I don't like the consequences for anyone else, let alone me.  On the other hand, if I become educated in a lucrative field, and ply my trade honestly and lawfully, and use my wealth to benefit others as well as myself, than I can face the mirror and like the guy I see.

Still pounding? Feeling like sand? premature efactulation.

> Stephen

You do not agree with me at all. I never said the Bible is unreliable. In fact, I did say

To find the integrity, you have to read it, and read it again. And again. When you have the attention span of a gnat, such is impossible, which is why you have not, and, therefore, have naught in any integrity to comment on it at all. Why bother?

Your sense of history just about matches the utter lack of it expressed by HistoryBuff. Hermeticism is Satanic? You understand neither hermeticism nor Satanism.

meanwhile, your Bible is is need of its daily beating until its morale improves.

I’m thinking this topic would make an interesting debate, but a specific resolution so far escapes me. Any thoughts, and would the topic interest you?

BroT pounding his Bible again. Premature efactualtion...

When I think of some efforts back in the day in translating the Bible [nobody knew to call it that, then, by the way] from whatever was had into whatever translators thought they wanted it to say [agenda, anyone?], I think of Jack Nicholson's line in "A Few Good Men" [1992]:  You can't handle the truth!"

Frankly, I'm shocked the book managed to have enough integrity left in it when monks and such finished their agenda and still managed to give us an inkling of truth.

The infallible Word of God? You know, deep down, he never wrote a single word of it. Even in original manuscripts, men did the writing. Not even Jesus wrote anything but what is recorded as "and again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground." [John 8: 8]. There's no mention of anyone scooping up that writing to preserve it, and we have not a clue what he wrote. I'm suspicious that it was a note to Satan: "I'm doing this for you, too, little brother." After all, it was an infinite atonement. Trying to offer salvation and exaltation to the devil is, indeed, infinite.

Yeah, it's why I prefer calling it hollowood.

Some can do no more than cry. So, cry.

Thank you, Athias. You have fairly and accurately defended my position.

oromagi, you still don't get it. As I said, I don't care that it's one man with a mission. Talk like that is infectious, and he is dead wrong. I'm serious when I say, census-wise, I am a nose and it has no color. Society should not view us any differently. Too many people care what color I happen to be, as if I had anything to do with it as a choice. Or are we going to start the same nonsense we have with gender? I don 't get to choose that, either. That whole "social construct" is just as absurd. Mainly because, what does it matter? As Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." Racially, and by gender, these are not choices. They're mom and dad, and not even they really choose, do they? Imagine a cheetah choosing to have a purple and green coating of hair. Creative, perhaps, but to what purpose?

How has my argument shifted? Both #1 and #4 indicate my preference for eliminating racial distinction. I don't care if it is one principal or the entire school system, it is arguing for even greater racial segregation than we experience now. To what good does that point? That's why I say, census and demographic-wise, count me as a nose. Color of it be bloody well damned.

Their are appropriate and inappropriate drivers’ use of blind intersections. But the analogy fails because police officers are not blind to their policies unless they close their eyes to them. That’s on them, not the system.

It’s for a while.

Though new to the site (welcome, by the way), you see that BroT is a  broken little man who is best ignored, Bhutto on occasion it’s fun to listen to him pound his table.

Sometimes, you just gotta show up. Then do according to your abilities, whatever they may be and however physical limitations apply. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Is that measurable? To the degree that improvement can be demonstrated, yes.

Where the system defines by what means an officer can detain a suspect that obviously precludes an officer applying his body weight focused on one knee on the neck of the suspect lying on the ground, pray tell how does that allow and officer to, so to speak, wear red underwear? That the officer, in that case, was physically able to perform that act, and even though his policy manual did not specifically prohibit a knee to the neck [it doesn't - I looked] it does prohibit his using physical force that would endanger the suspect's life, when all that is needed is to apply cuffs to hands behind the back and deposit the suspect in the backseat of the police cruiser, the officer has obviously violated that policy by his actions. He, therefore, acted outside the policy, and outside the system, although performing that action while on duty and in uniform. Is that so hard to understand? The system defined his appropriate action, but he acted, by choice [he was not coerced by policy] of his own volition. HE is at fault, not the SYSTEM.

So, no, the system did not allow his wearing of red underwear. He chose to do so on his own. The other officers also violated policy by not restraining the offending officer; guilt by ignoring proper restraint. They, also, violated policy acting outside the system.

Is it "needlessly complicated" to define achievement standards for the disabled. Difficult, yes, considering the wide variety of disabilities. For some, perhaps it is justified to be dismissed from requiring physical education. I'm sure that occurs, anyway, but does that mean it is justified to dismiss it for all who are able? Adjust the system by the limitations of the few? That is "needlessly complicated."

Yes, and this relates to the separate threaded discussion on defunding the police, that errant officers are not acting according to the system, but outside of it, because the system does not condone, nor document their chosen, disobedient behavior.

In the system, but not of the system. That they oppose the system does not imply that they hold themselves to act within the system; they act by their own agency. If the law says they are to wear blue, but they choose to dress in red underwear, hidden in the system, so to speak, is action of their own volition, not the system's.

Having thus, in your words, "put me in my place," that you continue to address me implies that I do not remain in place. Sorry, but my free will is not subservient to yours. Just the way it is, bro. Your cross to bear. Your limitation. As it is yours, and not mine, milk it. bro.

> Stephen

1. Satan asked Jesus to prove who he was by challenging Jesus to be of self-service; to satisfy his own hunger by the use of his priesthood power to convert stones to bread. To satisfy personal greed. But that act would be contrary to his mission to be of service to others. That is why he was willing to convert water to wine for a wedding feast in which it was apparent that Mary, his mother, was a family friend and assistant in the feast. Though his mission had not yet begun, he was constrained by his mother, who knew he could do it, to provide more wine for the feast. The best wine of the feast, as it turned out. That was service to others. When you are in service to your fellow beings, you are in service to God.

2. Indeed, who was Satan? He was a son of God [the son of the morning] in the spirit, who spoiled his own chance to obtain a physical body as was intended, and which, by his first estate obedience, in the spirit, was the intent all along by the plan of God. That Satan disobeyed, and rebelled, he was banished forever of having a physical body. You will note that once having a physical body, the truth is, as did Jesus, we will all resurrect with a physical, perfected body. Where we go from that point is all determined by the lives we lead on Earth; some to heaven, which has a variety of kingdoms of glory, and some to hell; i.e., withdrawn from the presence of God. Satan and his current minions, plus all who a seriously in defiance of God, will inhabit hell.

3. Who says that was the only experience of Jesus being tempted by Satan, as if it was such a special and unique experience for him? We are all tempted by Satan. That Jesus was better at it than are we was the point. In order to become the Savior of the world, his was intended to be a perfectly lived life, such that a complete innocent wold be sacrificed for the sins of the world. He was tempted during his entire life. Do you think Satan was off somewhere playing golf when Jesus was in Gethsemane, and on the cross? When Jesus was performing the very acts that would banish Satan from him, and all of us [that is, if we are faithful in our acknowledgement of the atonement of Christ, and if we are not, are of the minions of Satan] forever more? No. That was the entire mission of Jesus Christ, to act by sacrifice for all of us. We are tempted our entire lives. So was Jesus, and his actions, as ours, were entirely by his choice to do. Free agency is the gift of God; the greatest after giving us life and the atonement.

4. God did not and does not need Satan's approval. In fact, quite the opposite. It would have been better for Satan, in the long run, to have approved of God rather than combat him and try to usurp him.

> Stephen

And now for the third time, you have invited my departure, but you keep calling me back. Confused, Stephen? Typical state of mind. So, embrace your limitations; they're yours.

And that is my entire point. Satan challenged Jesus to perform a supernatural act [conversion of stone to bread] to serve himself, which was not his mission.

If the individuals framed their actions according to the system, they would act within systemic rules. That they do not act that way demonstrates that they act contrary to the system. If you're supposed to build a house, but your building ends up being a mailbox, you have failed to act according to the system. Why is that so hard to understand?

You've entirely missed what I said. I repeat:

Is that clear, now? 

You're both missing the entire point: That there is no justification for such descriptive demographics, at all. That beneath the differentiations of skin, hair, feature shapes and whatnot, our DNA is virtually identical. In fact, but for the skull, if nothing else [no other tissue] is left of a dead human but skeleton, race cannot be determined. It is not by DNA, but by size and shape of the skull. https://medium.com/forensic-anthropology/what-can-be-read-in-bone-remains-a81fb7562fde. We share blood types, even.

So, why are we so hung up on racial profile at all? Why can't we look at one another, celebrate our differences rather than discriminate by them. Is that so hard?

After all, does any of our infrastructure really need to differentiate us other than by age and sex - and the latter only minimally? I repeat: does the road care what I am, racially? No. Neither should anyone or anything else. 

And I have answered your question. The system cannot and does not have evidence of 100% compliance. Human behavior contrary to a system's documented law/policy is an individual decision, and the system is not responsible for individual decisions, is it? 

By what commentary do I support ableism? I've simply said that we are different in our abilities to compete in any discipline, and that is not discriminatory, it is reality. I'm not saying the disabled are required to compete with the abled according to the same criteria. I am saying all should compete to their best ability, whatever that ability is. How is that ableism? Have I said I am critical of the Special Olympics? Perhaps a restrictive name, but I didn't make it, did I?

People who violate the system [by that I mean legal statutes and government policies], individually or in groups, are at fault for disobeying the system, and not the system itself. Obviously, people as individuals or groups who choose to violate the rules are faulty, not the system. If the system defines behavior that is harmful to individuals or groups, then the system is at fault. The system is documented. Individual action is just aberrant behavior, undocumented and purposeless for a social perspective.

There is no legal statute or official policy that can guarantee behavior will follow it; that is up to each individual. Therefore, the individual is not systemic unless that individual is compliant.