Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1. No one is property of another.
2. Our personal responsibility demands we recognize the rights of others with equal regard as to our own.
Created:
Posted in:
Know who you are.
Know what you believe.
Knowhow your beliefs may affect others.
Created:
Y’all ignore that Jesus told Thomas that he was blessed for seeing and believing, but that the greater blessing is had by faith when not seeing. .
“Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”
why would God appear to you with your indifference?
Who are you to tell God he does not speak?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Thanks. On the surface, I like both suggestions, but I also more strongly agree with your conclusions. Unfortunately, it is a matter of behavior, kind of like my preference for making dinner than doing dishes.
Created:
Posted in:
Sounds good, yeah?
What's the list that I top? The number of total debates with no-vote tie decisions by percentage of debates. My next nearest competitor for this top spot is RationalMadman, with whom I have had 3 debates of my total of 54 finished, to date. One of those 3 was, coincidentally, on the subject; "Resolved: debates should not end with a no-vote tie." Guess what? Yes, that debate ended in a no-vote tie.
Stats: Years on DART Number of finished debates Number of ties Number [and %] of no-vote ties
Rational 2.5 310 28 18 5.8%
fauxlaw 0.9 54 10 7 12.9%
My issue is not with RM, with whom I have had good debates. I enjoy the stimulating competition with him. My angst is with the rest of you who do not bother to vote. On the other hand, someone must lead this unrated issue [I think it does not factor into rating, but, who knows. It would be nice to have some idea of that formula]. But, I would not envy anyone at the top of this list, even though they would have naught to do with the outcome of no-vote ties. I have been on this site, as noted, for 11 months, and I have 115 debate votes to my credit [10th ranking]. The other nine have all been on this site longer than me, so, of the top voters, in consideration of my membership on the site, I also rank highest in votes per time served. So, what of the lot of you?
I have previously proposed the formation of a group of people to serve as voters who are committed to preventing no-vote ties. I personally attempt to act in that role. As the leader of that particular distinction, I re-assert that proposal. It sees to have little interest among the people who influence policy. What gives? For the time invested in creating debate arguments, it's disappointing to face apathy in voters.
I consider the value of adding a proposal that debaters who do not also vote lose some privilege of debating. What better way to improve one's own debate skills than by analysis of how others debate? Only voting will do that.
There are actually two others [seldiora* & Type1] who have more ties than mine, but neither are current members.
*Seldiora exists now as gugigor, with 5 debates and 0 ties.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Show me the systemic proof that opportunity is not equally available.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
thereby removing the option of the Chief Justice presiding.
And also thereby eliminating the need of Senate impeachment trial against a private citizen. A House impeachment, by the way, which violated House rules Pelosi had ratified for the 116th Congress by not holding committee investigations, with witnesses to establish evidence, which are required to be had, by Rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It appears, to answer your original question, that you have named your brothers. Who you are is a different question. You have also defined yourself: a retired nuke engineer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Let us recall that impeachment has but two potential results: removal from office, and disqualification. Sorry that your wish balloon drone is just that. Keep blowing; the balloon needs more hot air.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
No, we do not agree. The opening statement of H-Res 24 names Trump, President of the United States.” As of the start of trial, which Pelostomy delayed, again, unnecessarily, he is no longer the President. So, the trial is a sham.
Created:
Now the fourth manager up, and he is going to review “up to January 6,”
If the Article itself is lacking substance, whose fault is that? Pelostomy?
Created:
When is a House Manager going to present evidence reflecting the single article presented, which speaks only to Trump’s “conduct on January 6, 2021?” We’re presented a history of the election and since, but the article speaks to 1/6, not to events prior to that date. When is someone going to focus?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Unfettered. Yes, good word, but you apply it poorly. My father taught me three lessons; ambition, planning, and execution. You skip over ambition, which is rarely taught. A common argument today is minimum wage. You might take a read of where that phrase was introduced, in the Fair Labor Act of 1938. It [min wage] was never meant to support a family; only an individual. The essence of that law has never changed. it's a beginning wage of the unskilled. Not now. To me, min wage is a low-ball goal. If that's all Democrats have ambition for, it's no wonder many never have ambition for more. When there is no limit to the money supply - and there is not, contrary to Oba'a - why have such an unworthy goal? How to make more money? Be better educated, and acquire the skills necessary to be of greater worth than min wage. Working for money should be a minimum goal. putting money to work for you is how it's done. You want to be rich? Who's holding you back? Look in the mirror. Be ambitious, make a plan, and execute. Do it again. And again. I taught the people who worked for me how to calculate what they were worth, and justify their wage. Those who did received higher pay than those who chose to let me value their worth. I gaded for personal ambition. Some never got that point.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Who says that?
The contextual understanding of 19th century English syntax is that "shall have the power" indicates that power may be used, but is not mandatory. They, the Senate in this case, may choose to not engage use of the power. It's a bit like a common Christian claim that since God is omnipotent, he always must act with omnipotence, even when that may be excessive use of power. Some things are more simple to do for God than others, just like for us. Why waste power not needed?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Who's "radical interpretation?" Eight Senate convictions. Granted. Which of those eight was the President, deserving of having the Chief Justice preside? The requirement is exclusive for the President, yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why do you think “incitement of insurrection” is in the constitution?
Since you put that phrase in quotes, I take your comment to mean that the entire phrase is contained within the Constitution. It is you who had better show me, because that phrase does not exist in any Article or Amendment. "Insurrection" is mentioned four times, first in Article I, section 8, clause 15; "To... suppress insurrections..." that is, a mandate on Congress to do so as one of a list of 17 specific legislative duties of Congress. So you tell me what Nancy Pelosi is doing on 9/21/2020, on ABC This Week, saying, "We have arrows in our quiver..." and "this administration is a threat to our democracy." Having a quiver of arrows, and charging that the President threatens our democracy does not sound like an effort to suppress insurrection. Charity begins at home, my friend. Two of the four mentions of insurrection deal with Congress suppressing it. Didn't do that, did they?
Created:
Posted in:
The game was spoiled by Biden. Go back to your pool job, joe
Created:
Posted in:
The game was spoiled by Biden. Go back to your pool job, joe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What Trump actions? He spoke. If people cannot control their own actions, that’s on them, yeah?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The Constitution requires that “when the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”
The President is not being tried, so there should be no trial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“but look at what theDemocrats said.”
I would rather look at what the Democrats did not say during all the destructive riots all over the country last summer.
Created:
Further: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."
If you insist, as above in my #1, that "shall have the power" means compelled to use power, must the Chief Justice preside in a Senate trial, or there is no trial?
Consistency is a necessary component of interpretation, or did you think the Founders were that sloppy in cafeteria-style interpretation?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
no thanks, not a gamer.
Created:
Does the above phrase from Article I say that the Senate is compelled to use that power, even in a case for which that body has original jurisdiction? If you agree, why do you also agree that the Supreme Court, also in a case of original jurisdiction, was not compelled to hear a case before it? Voilà, the contradiction of the progressive so-called mind.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A total negation of government
Created:
1. Yes.
2. No, this appears a negative mitigation, not a positive for exceptional argumentation.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@3RU7AL
@Athias
what is an imperfect government's value to an imperfect people?
The best of imperfect governments will be best at preventing total anarchy; the absence of any government. Government, even an imperfect one, will accomplish more for individual rights to be allowed to flourish, while accepting that a minority of individuals will still be anarchists.
Created:
Posted in:
The flaws in Soluminsansis' syllogism:
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA.
Sensation and perception are two different processes, though they are related. However, saying that these separate functions relate to a telos [an ultimate purpose] is a stretch. That our sensations and perception of same as a means to discover truths of the world around us is a valid result of that perception, but our physical sensory inputs are all of an external nature; our contact with the world around us. What we think, what we conclude on what we think has an entirely different input than external forces. Therefore, P1 is not a constant dependable to rely on the conclusion [P6, which ought to be 'C']
P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth.
The passing of DNA, as stated [P1, and, assumed for P2] Is not an uninterrupted series of duplicated DNA for inheritance purposes, one generation to the next. According to Scientific American, life experience, particularly early life experience, has a direct effect on modification of DNA, which may, generation to generation, have its imprinted effect. There4fore, P2 is also flawed as stated, because, as stated, the perception of truth may be influenced by experience, and P2 does not account for that experiential modification.
P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.
The yield of truth may be equally affected in the theist's sense and perception, so this posit is a non sequitur.
P4. Therefore if atheism is true, there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
Just as P3 is a variable for atheists, so it is for theists. Therefore, P4 is also a non sequitur.
P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.
This is the only valid posit of the bunch, but, strictly on the basis of sensory perception, and purpose, this is function for both atheist and theist. Therefore, it is a non sequitur.
P6. Therefore atheism is false.
p6, as noted, is truly a conclusion, or should be, but given the non sequiturs, it is not, not merely another posit. Howevere, also given the non sequiturs, an aatheist can just as easily conclude theism is false.
I happen to agree with Soluminsanis, but not by this syllogism.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Who regulates the behavior of men in government? What happens when there's a government impropriety?
In Federalist Papers #51, Madison wrote,“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men… you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The latter is where we fall down because, of course, being fallible men, we do not frame a perfect government. Further, although we legislate to 'control' human behavior, and that is a laudable goal, it is one which is not going to succeed 100% because the 'control' is an illusion. There is always free will. Not everyone's free will is inclined to be lawful, because neither men nor man's government is angelic. Madison was well aware that the practical application of the Constitution would not be perfected, but it is still the best means to govern men yet established this side of heaven.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
No I think eternity is outside of our time space continuum.
No, the idea of eternity is that there is no time; a space time continuum, or otherwise.
An actual infinite number of things cannot be instatiated.
Do you mean instantiated? There is no instatiate according to my OED. But, either way, why need infinity be either one?
A past infinite would be actual, which is not instantiated.
The only difference between actual and potential is past and future. Why need either be instatiated, which does not exist, anyway?
who was the first god?
There is no 'first' in eternity. Why would there be? You continue to insist that eternity has a beginning. There is no clock. Kind of like, "there is no spoon." [Matrix] Isn't that contrary to the point? Quit trying to wrap your head around eternity. The point is, you cannot wrap your finite head around anything eternal. The logic of eternity is that it is. Kind of like God telling Moses, "Thou shall say unto the children of Israel [those in Egypt] I Am hath sent me unto you." In Hebrew, " 'eh-yeh " is simply a statement of being, as always existing. Eternal, yeah?
Eh. Yeah.
Why not worship the first deity that started the chain?
Oh, ye of little faith. Don't get it, yet, do you? There is no first link in the chain.
According to Fra Luca de Pacioli [friend of Da Vinci], the language of God is mathematics [a perfect language, after all]. You are insisting on a ray, a single, starting point with a half-infinite line. Eternity is a full line, infinite in both directions. If math can demonstrate that [it can] but the mind cannot, where is the fault?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I accept your preaching. But, do you suppose that Isaiah is preaching to all the universe, or just to Earthlings, to whom "there is only one God?" What if Earth is but one inhabited planet of millions. Maybe billions. Or more. Who knows? And cannot these other planets have other Creators of them? To whom they are "the one true God?"
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The sermonist response to oromagi:
Turn what Ben Sasse said on your Democrats, who have also said, "we've got to fight." Where's this commentary by their own toward them? Hmmm? By their words ye shall know them. By their acts ye shall know them. I'd say it's about time all sides step back, ponder, and then say, "There but for the grace of God, go I." Only, we've been there in spite of the grace of God, so I think it's really time for some healing by admission that, grace of God, or not, we've all been down the road enough to know the road to good intentions is paved with hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you saying that repentance is just saying "I'm sorry," and nothing else? If so, you have not read enough.
What, just accept Jesus, admit that you've sinned, and that's it? Once? What do you think "take up your cross and follow me" means? You think Jesus meant we should pick up a cross, drag it around for a while, and that's it? I think Jesus did a little more than just drag it around. He endured on it to his end, didn't he? He suffered and bled to his mortal end, didn't he? While living on earth, he carried it. We didn't see it, but it was there, haunting him. Yet he endured, suffered to the end. And you think you can just acknowledge the Christ, say "Im sorry," and that's it? God in heaven, that's not it! He doesn't even ask you to bleed. HE did that for us. But it's not "I'm sorry," and then "I'm saved in heaven's bliss, regardless of what I do now." We only get to say that after we have endured to our end of mortality. It's a full test, not a quiz. It's a life-long struggle, not a walk in the park and "Jesus loves me" that's going to get us there. Don't we have to do a lot of loving of one another, too? Sometimes, that hurts to do, but isn 't that "taking up our cross?"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Every country began by socialism.
Isn't that just dwelling on the thin shell?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. I accept that government must exist because we are not angels, yet. But, I disagree that government is the only answer, and that seems to be what it thinks, right now.
Created:
> Stephen
So, you prefer the idea that we should have been forced to do good, to have no free agency to choose for ourselves, and to gain no knowledge of good and evil for ourselves, in order to use agency as it should be used? That is, after all, all that Adam and Eve did. They chose for themselves. Perhaps, after all, there is purpose in that.
And note that I am not insisting that you get off of my string. I banned you for your bad treatment of me, not because I didn't want to hear what you say. You might do likewise. Forgive and forget.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There are three kinds of people in the world;
make things happen
watch what happens
wonder what happened.
living in the third world is not my idea of a good journey.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Do you think eternity has a beginning and only progresses forward? Think again. That's a ray, not a line. Eternity is a line, and, yes, God has a father, and so on. The problem with our treatment0 of infinite regression is that we cannot represent it graphically, and, therefore, think that it must have a beginning point, like the big bang. Does it have to be that way? If infinity goes forward, why can't it go backward? Of course, all that has to do with time, which is not a construct God deals with. We do, but why must he? Time does not exist other than in our heads. Why impose that on God. on any of them? What, can't wrap your head around eternity? Are you supposed to be able to do that, now? With God are all things possible, or not? Faith is accepting that if not now, we will understand by and by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
a rapist who simply repented before they died would go to heaven
simple repentance? Do you really think the confessional is a rotating door; you simply go in, say you're sorry, and all is forgiven so you can revolve right back out and do it again, and repeat that cycle until death, and we really call that repentance? Or, in the rapist's case, goes in once, and it's effective? NO that is not repentance, that's just a revolving door.
And I don't believe one needs a priest, anyway. Why do I need any other mortal as my conduit to God and to Christ? Confess to God. Confess to those we wrong, and work to the best of our ability to resolve the wrong with that person, compensate by however possible, even if that amounts to nothing but sincere remorse, and a conviction to not repeat it again. THAT's repentance, and the rapist on the deathbed cannot do all that. Sorry, but "I'm sorry" is just the start of repentance, and worthless at that if not sincere. Come on, you know this, deep down. God does too, and is not going to give that guy a pass.
I've never heard God speak with my ears, either. I don't expect that. He speaks to my heart, and that burning thrill passes throughout my body. It's the best feeling in the world, feeling totally enlightened. That's the Holy Ghost speaking. If you've felt that before, exercise it. If you have not, exercise until you've proven to God that you want and need answers, and that you will pursue it, committed, until you do. Then, repeat, because there's an awful lot to know, after all.
Nor do I believe there are just two kingdoms, heaven and hell. I think heaven is many kingdoms, each accommodating the wide variety of people there are. Some will live with God in his kingdom, others will live in glorified kingdoms, at least better than earth, but not as good as with God, and will house people of relative goodness, and some partially bad, but not truly evil. I believe their are kingdoms that have neither God nor Satan in them. Hell is total darkness, for truly evil, despicable people.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Was it, in fact, a lie? What was Satan's entire line? "Ye shall be as gods [note that is plural], knowing good and evil." That is complete knowledge gods have, and man can have, growing from line upon line of understanding, becoming gods in the process. It's a long, long line, but it's worth. the journey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You think belief is sufficient? Belief compels no one to do anything. Faith is the operative word. The two are not synonymous words. What is faith? Hebrews 11: 1 is as good a definition as I've seen. Actually, the entire chapter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
verify that, please.
There's a formula: A + B + C + D + E + F = knowledge of truth, found in Moroni 10; 4, 5
What are the elements of the formula?
A = read/study
B = ask God, the Eternal Father
C = ask in the name of Christ
D = have a sincere heart
E = have real intent to want to know
F = have faith in Christ that an answer will be given
the sum equals knowledge of the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost, by which the truth of all things can be known
That's the verification. Must touch all bases. Must include all elements, or the conclusion is not reached. Doubt is not there. Don't.
Also, what of the people who will be in hell?
The people in hell will have denied their right to obtain the truth and act on it. They have limited themselves from perfection. Like I said, it's a matter of choice, like choosing to not use all elements of the formula given to know what is true.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
it wasn't God who said it.
Guess you'll never know if you don't ask him. What, afraid to know yourself? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
Created:
Posted in:
Arguing over what the Bible says, what Ehrman or Mezger, or Josephus, or Tacitus said, or any mortal said seems counterproductive and counterintuitive. Do we seek a plumber to obtain roof repair? Listening to y'all, I'd assume that's your only option.
Why not ask God. If you are really sincere in your questions, have real intent in obtaining an answer. ask the source. We say the Bible is the word of God, but ignore him when we have questions. Really? No, God did not write one word of it. Did he have to, or , like any good executive, did he deligate, even using imperfect men for the job. Who better to use than struggling men to do a task. Men who want to do it right, but make mistakes. Since they do and did, if you want to know what is true, ask God, but know what you want and have faith that an answer will come. Faith is not mere belief, it is, literally, as Paul told the Hebrews, "...the substance ofd things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Is that even a true rendition of what Paul really said? Don't know? Ask God. Is that so hard?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Karl Marx believed
Karl Marx understood neither bourgeois nor proletariat, because he never ran a lemonade stand. He believed there was ownership and labor. The fact is, labor accounts for 40%, on average, of an enterprise's revenue, and Marx believe the balance was bourgeois profit. Because he never ran a lemonade stand, he never understood business necessities, like product D&D, marketing, materials logistics, manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, and customer service, and all the expense of hiring that expertise and paying for it. Marx believed bourgeois profited 60%, because he never ran a lemonade stand. Show me the country that began by socialism. None. Some countries become socialist, and they tend to die within 40 years. USSR Holds the record at 75 years. China is coming close, but is their economy really a socialist model, now? No. Meanwhile, There's a free market capitalist enterprise 230 years and counting. Actually more like 400 years, because the colonies operated that way, too. I'm betting on that system
Created:
Some may recognize this phrase by Lorenzo Snow. "...may become" because it is destiny, but not all will reach it, because some just cannot work without setting limits on themselves. It is indicative of the idea of eternal progression, the role of God and man, and the purpose of our mortal lives working toward immortality and eternal life. Eternal life is not just everlasting life, but specifically, everlasting in the presence of God, who intends that we become like him, while he continues progressing, himself. There is no end to becoming perfect in all things. Like knowledge, it is without end. Perfection, like any single skill, has its degrees of accomplishment. Perfection, like eternity, is a boundless, borderless accomplishment, ever expanding, ever advancing. We try to limit the definition because we have, at present, finite minds. It will not always be so. Then, as the British once though of their empire, the sun will never set on us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Would you like to demonstrate that all of creation is the best it could possibly be?
You have entirely missed my point. We are imperfect so that we, ourselves, make ourselves perfect by our own choices and efforts, not because God should have made us that way in the first place.
What proof have I of that? "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5: 48. "This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1: 39
Created:
Posted in:
The First Amendment offers us the right to be offended, but not to censure because of it.
- fauxlaw
Created: