fauxlaw

Not how a god behaves? What better creation than one that can improve itself by its own choices to become perfect itself? Did you ever consider that it is our ultimate destiny to become perfect gods, ourselves? Why not? What child should not desire to one day become like its father and mother?

At an unnecessary price. 

Deceit is an inappropriate goal, and gravel need not be the result if one never grovels. We ignore Madison at our peril. If men were angels, they would not need government.

No, the best of man's political alignment is to no longer need politics nor government to act properly.

The purpose of creation is not that everything created be perfect as created, but that it becomes perfect by effort.

I suggest you read my post #338 in Forum/philosophy/Antitheist AMA. Logic sometimes fails in practicality.

Re: my #337 post above, here's an example from my own experience in manufacturing. I was, for a time, a packaging designer. I designed a polystyrene threaded, two-piece clamshell for a plastic printwheel when we used such things before laser printing. My design was given to a toolmaker. All my dimensions had nominals plus tolerances, typically ± .005. Tolerances are given for a reason; because we do not expect every nominal to be hit on target, but there must be limits on sloppiness. However, in this case, the toolmaker hit ever dimension exactly on nominal. That should have been a cause for celebration, but, it turned out the design was flawed [mine] because every dimension made perfectly resulted in the two pieces of the clamshell, when closed, to create a virtual hermetic seal. When newly molded printwheels were immediately packaged in the clamshell, the outgassing that all plastic parts exhibit could not exhaust properly, and they warped. We had to have the toolmaker spoil his perfect tool, but it made for acceptable parts in their function. Sometimes, imperfection is practical.

This idea of God's omnipotence is a joke from this perspective; Y'all think because God is omnipotent, he can only act omnipotently all the time. That's the joke. Must he always act with all his power to accomplish anything? No. Case in point: does God create imperfect things? Yes, us. other stuff, too. Everything around us. Is a tree perfect? There are plenty that are not. there are plenty of us [all of us, frankly] that are not perfect. How can God be omnipotent and create imperfect things? I can, with instruments, draw a perfect square. Do I always draw perfect squares? Must I always draw perfect squares? No, and no. Must God? No. Does God acting imperfectly mean he is not perfect? No. He acts perfectly when needed, but if not needed, or if there is purpose in creating imperfect things, so be it. This all or nothing crap is just that.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. But why are we so entangled in wanting to fix everything, when we know little about everything? If we all took personal responsibility for all we say and do, we would quickly see that our choices have been flawed. 

If we take personal responsibility for all we say and do, and act more angelic, why do we need limitations? If we use our free will to always choose wisely, we need no limitations, do we? That's the goal, and the journey is worth it.

You miss the entire point of the SoM. Consult Jim Madison; If men were angels, they would not need government. Reagan, too; Government is not the answer. Where should enforcement be? What ever happened to personal responsibility? See the SoM. It's one eternal round.

Liz Cheney has forgotten her father? I'm sure you were complaining then, too.

A perfect argument of limitation. Well done.

Oh, but there is; read Moroni 10: 4,5. Hint: it's a similar message, but more detailed, than James 1: 2 -6. I'll give you another hint: Don't know what's true? Ask God. You don't ask a plumber to solve the legal issue of your property line, do you? Maybe you do. Ask an expert. God qualifies.

And who said God stopped talking to man with the Bible, retired and went fishing? Who are we to limit to whom and when God speaks? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

Since, politically, I am a sermonist, [not R or D, or S, or any other alpha] my measuring stick is the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7] Not a political platform? The hell it isn't. There is no better cure of society's problems, [the purpose of politics, no?] all of them, than adherence to the principles taught in the Sermon on the Mount. It is an excellent political platform, but I may be its only declared constituent. Better, each platform plank grows from the last, until the ultimate plank is reached: love your enemies. How better to treat an enemy than to make one a friend? They begin with personal improvements, then transcend to helping others. No better way to live was ever proposed. It's why C.K. Chesterton once said, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it's that it has never been tried. We should try it.  

No, because you do not need to create models to observe the direct effects of smoking on human anatomical systems. Not so with climate change. Create a flawed model, you have flawed results. for example, the current model of climate change establishes a baseline from a random period: 1950 to 1980. Who says that period is exemplary of the climate of Earth over the billions of years of its existence? more to the point, AOC's white paper that was the launching vehicle for HR-109 stipulated 5 actionables. One of then. was called participatory budgeting, i.e., creating a federal commission to oversee private industry budgeting. What the hell has that to do with climate? What it is a pure socialism. What better way for government to occupy the function of private industry than to mess with its budgeting? that's a model of politics, not environment. 

my granddaughter loaded roblox on my wife's ipad and screwed it up. Took all the RAM. In my household, roblox is a big noblox, and now the ipad is just fine again, and my granddaughter is confined to her own phone.

no argument here about that.

What of it? Show my their police procedure manuals. Do the manuals specify racist performance? If they don't [and they don't], then the problem is individual, not systemic.

Who's chart? What makes this chart authoritative.

A sideline to demonstrate non-authoritative status; relative to the authoritarian v. libertarian scale, Trump is more auth. than Biden, yet who has more EO's issued at two weeks into their admin? Trump? Big Nope.

So how valid is this chart? Sucks comes to. mind. Where does the creator of the chart sit on the bias scale, huh?

Yes, that is true, but Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Joseph, who was not designated as a tribe of his own. As a side note, the Book of Mormon is a volume of scripture that gives an account of the remnants of Manasseh after the Babylonian occupation in the 6th century BCE. One of the scientific "disproofs" of the Book of Mormon is that by trace of mitochondrial DNA, it has been demonstrated that indigenous peoples of the Americas do not exhibit Judaic blood, therefore, it is claimed, the account of claims of lineage to the House of Israel are false. However, Manasseh is not issue from Leah, the mother of Judah, but from Rachel, the mother of Joseph, the father of Manasseh. Different mother; different mitochondrial DNA. We must have an independent descendent of Rachel, but do not have one. Yet.

The defund-the-police movement supposes that police procedures dictate a racist attitude and performance. They do not. Without having definitive policies to be racially prejudiced, the incidents of police action wrongly applied is not systemic, but individual racist behavior, even if it is more than a single person doing it. The system cannot be blamed for individuals' actions, period. These defund protagonists think it is wrong that foxes watch the chicken coop, but what if it is the chickens misbehaving. Bad anology. There are, unfortunately, foxes who put on chicken suits and they misbehave, but there is no police policy for foxes to do that. So, who to blame? The system? The system does not impose foxes wearing chicken suits; the foxes do it on their own by individual choice. Get it?

No, when the answer is already premature efactulation, the question is unnecessary

Have an original thought? That one's been thunk to death

I am not here, you have not seen me.

I suppose that argument has some merit [though you apparently oppose it]. After all, what says there cannot be objective evil? I do not necessarily argue that  evil has a good side, I don't, but I still think it has objective characteristics. Is not pure intent an objective philosophy, even if it is evil?

I say this because I believe there must be opposition in all things.

I just noticed that you gave this string to two categories. Didn't know one could do that. How?

My answer to your recent PM:

With our recent PM discussion clarified, I like the proposals on voting protocols. I still wish, however, that as voters, we could award a kudos to a superlative [whatever we individually consider that to be] performance by a debater. It does risk turning into a "I liked that debate." Kudos should point to a specific argument that sold a previous skeptical voter on a point argued. That said, I think kudos would belong in the argument criteria only. I would even argue that a losing debater could potentially be awarded kudos even if other criteria points gave the opponent the victory.

And the Democrat party is no longer just liberal; there are damn few of them left. They are progressives and socialist/communists. This splintering has affected both parties. That Biden is attempting to be all things to all Dems will end by his appeasing no one. At least Trump was openly critical to those in the  party who opposed him..

What words, exactly, did Trump say to cause insurrection? "Fight?" Look up the numbers of Democrats, Biden to Waters, Pelosi to Schoofly, who have used that word to encourage their followers. Are they any less insurrectionists than Trump saying it? Trump told them to go "peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to let their voices be heard." Is that insurrectionists when Waters, saying, "You got to get in their faces," and saying she "will put down Trump tonight!" is not insurrectionist, and Pelosi says "we have arrows in our quiver and we will use them?" It cuts both ways, my friend, or not at all. Shall we impeach them all?

Besides, anyone who is weak enough to let words drive them to violence and destruction has not a backbone and no self-control. Words do not incite unless we're too weak to let them bounce of the ears. Argue for your limitations, they're yours.

That depends on whether you are talking legally or biologically. Legally, it is confusing because of the conflicting statutes of 1 USC §8 and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

Biologically, human and person are both defined, even prior to conception, due to the living status of both male and female gametes in their respective hosts' bodies, the which characteristics, even though just half the full DNA helix. As RNA gametes, they still only define a human creature, and half personhood. They achieve full personhood upon conception, because nothing changes the characteristics of humanity before or after birth. And since 1 USC 8 defines a person as "born alive, regardless of stage of development," we cannot define when that really occurs, yet, because medical advances are allowing earlier stages of development that are still born alive. It's a moving target.

> Stephen

Your understanding of chronology, and its relation to creation of words, is pathetic. I need not be a Christian to note that, nor even much of a follower of historic events to recognize your lack. Jesus said on multiple occasions that he was sent to his own, to the remnants of the House of Israel, or, to the 12 tribes of Israel [Jacob, son of Issac], i.e. the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph, Benjamin [Jacob's 12 sons]. It is true; after Solomon, the twelve tribes separated, north and south, with nine tribes [not ten, because the levitical tribe was not ever given a territory, but were assigned to work in the temple located in Jerusalem, where it remain to the time of Jesus] in the north, calling themselves by the name "Israel", and two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, in the south, calling themselves "Judah."  "Christian" was not a name known during the life of Christ, but his followers, as you have noted in Acts, were called such afterward. But each member of each tribe knew their lineage [Reuben, etc]. Family ties, then, were far more prevalent then than they are now. That Jesus, himself, was sent only to the House of Israel by no means indicated that the apostles and other disciples would be so restricted.  Jesus, himself, expanded the effort by telling them, as you noted, and conveniently oppose, in Mark 16, and Matthew 28, to go into all the world to preach. At that point, the gospel was to be taught to all nations, not just the House of Israel. You start with baby steps, and learn to do more, yeah? It's how you learned, isn't it? Talk to people you know, then become more familiar with talking to strangers. What's so hard to understand about that? That "Christian" was not an extant word as Jesus began his ministry is not such a unique event. Why try to make it so, and in the process, attempt to de-legitimize a group of people. We hang labels on people, yeah? Mostly by what they espouse. As you had no "Christians" before and even during Christ, called by that moniker, of course, they did not exist. Now, they do. So bloody what?

I don't buy that the left is all liberal anymore. It may have been at one time, but the left has clearly splintered: liberal / progressive / socialist/communist. I've always thought liberals - damn few of them left, a mere, literal handful - could think rationally and had valid, if different approaches than conservatives. The rest are group-think junkies without an original idea from any of them. Joe Biden is an anomoly because, while really a liberal, he never had an original idea in his head. He's just plain dumb regardless of politics.

Morality is a group-think. Ethics is an individual decision. As a result, morality is objective. It is ethics that is subjective.

This polticalcompass begins its test, and continues through many questions that allegedly innocently, just like most media political polls, does not have unbiased questions. What does it mean, "If economic globalization is inevitable?" It assumes there is no other option, and proceeds to ask if one agrees or disagrees. Yeah, I disagree that it is inevitable, but that's not what the question asks. 

Further: "Our race has many superior qualities..." Dumb question when biology has demonstrated that at that level, genetics does not define any race. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

Still further: "Military action that violates international law..." As if international law [under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court] had a worldwide jurisdiction. It doesn't. Example: The U.S.A. is not a member.

Those are just from page 1 of the test. Since I answered no question, it will not let me go further. 3 of 7 biased questions is not a good ratio, and I suspect the rest is just as biased. Therefore: my opinion; any test that asks that many biased questions about my politics does not want to gage my politics; it wants to channel it. Sorry, I don't play stupid games.

I get that, but zed is denying seeing any argument that it is not justified, isn't he? He doesn't want a discussion, he wants a fan base in a jerking circle.

Just wondering what an unopposed discussion is worth? Isn't that something like a mutual premature efactulation?

The question [legitimacy, itself, is not a foregone conclusion] really must point to whether the nation's people are more corrupt than their elected leaders, because we have 32 fewer years of Republican presidents in history than Democrat Presidents, yet I'd say the corruption of Presidents is about the same. Stones can be thrown at both camps.  After all, there have been 4 attempts at impeachment of presidents [including Nixon, who surely would have been impeached had he not resigned, and the wheels of impeachment in his case were already in motion], and, party-wise, they are split 2-2. I'd say impeachment is the highest indicator of corruption.

On the other hand, as no president has ever been convicted, and, depending on whether accusations, alone, yield a corrupt president, there may be no corruption at all that is proven.

That is only ordinarily true, and mostly by artificial means:

1. While it appears by surface-looking only that Oba'a added 10,000 points to the DJIA, the deeper look reveals that it also lost 6,000 points over time during the Oba'a admin, for a net yield of only 4,000 points. Over eight years, that is a dismally ordinary accomplishment.

2. These gains were not due to market growth under its own steam, but by quantitative easement [QE] which artificially boosted the market briefly, but each QE infusion [which was begun by Bush anyway, and not an Oba'a original idea], but because the market was not sustaining its own growth, the boost quickly deflated. The resulting roller coaster effect to the market is a trademark of government interference in the free market, thus demonstrating the gross 6,000 point loss during Oba'a. He should have had,  were his increase really market-driven, rather than gov't-drivenn a net increase of nearly 16,000 points, but did not due to the temporary effects of QE.

Therefore, Trump had nothing of which to take advantage, as you and many of your prog cohorts claim, unless Trump continued QE. He did not. He de-regulated, allowing market forces to develop their own steam, which it always does left to its own motivation. Which is why, rather than a roller coaster for eight years, you effectively saw continuous climb, until Covid came calling - a factor the market could not anticipate. Even so, you've still seen DJIA top 30,000 points, effectively, an 11,000 point increase in four years.

If one knew anything about financial market history, any Buff would know this.

Have you read the motions filed in these cases, each of which had motions to dismiss? Probably not.

Motion to Dismiss. This motion asks the court to dismiss the suit because the suit doesn’t have a legally sound basis, even if all the facts alleged are proven true.https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/motions/

Undeniable, but only up to the point of conception when, indeed, a completely separate and distinct individual is realized. While currently not a scientific reality, the social reality will be required to change when medical/anatomical science achieves the definition of a person per 1 USC §8, which defines a "person" as "born alive regardless of stage of development," and that development is no further along than initial, one-celled conception; the zygote. When science develops [it will] a sustainable artificial womb, the zygote can be extracted [effectively "birth"] and thus inheriting its constitutional rights. Given that potential, only the current status of viability prevents the law from recognizing its definition of "person" to that extreme. The point is, the law need not change; only our social perception of its broader scope. Since that is [will be] the case, your [social] perception of the zygote being part of the woman's body must also change, even while accepting that the female gamete, although unique in its structure from every other cell in the female [or male] body. As representing merely half the complete DNA molecule, the gamete may, even legally, alter its perception as part of the woman's body because it has no continuing purpose or function within her body other than to become something entirely different than every other cell in her body. And considering that, uniquely, the count of ova, as opposed to sperm, is set at conception of every female, thus not duplicating themselves as does every other cell in her body, does that alter the status of "ownership" by the female as functional cells for and on behalf of her body?

Don't assume what I think. 

Trump was an elected president, not a supreme ruler. The President has limited power by the Constitution. Trump, as many presidents do, had a misguided opinion of his powers, but that condition is hardly unique. A federal judge has already halted a Biden EO to stop deportation of illegals. This, in Biden's first week, so, even Biden is bitten by the power assumption bug. trump is not my lord and Savior. The job is already adequately and permanently held by Another. Don't assume I'm a Trump-no-matter-what supporter. But I recognize progress when I see it, and I cited it. 

I'm not your tutor. Read.

To be specific, the topic is not government corruption, but, curiously, "Joe Biden sucks," whatever that means since Biden is not mentioned in Danielle's opening post. Or, was Danielle in a fit of recognizing the obvious, with undefined transference to Trump? And, additionally, "draining the swamp" is more than undefined "gov't corruption." So, are you also guilty of straying off-point? When is someone going to mention why Biden sucks? Oh, I think the subject is adequately covered in another string. Never mind.

I think the question ought to be relevant enough to inform voters that a vote offering source points when there is no sourcing, whether or not it is a full forfeit, amounts to fluff, sympathy voting. I don't buy it. Why be so condescending? What's wrong with taking a stand?

Yes, I agree that added feature [rebutting a source, so to speak] does account for my question. I reverse my commentary on non-improvement. 

When does a litigator try the entire case in pre-trial? Absurd.

From debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221-resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate, my R3, argument III.b:

"Above every round of argument to be posted, there is an instruction given above the argument form, titled “New debate argument.” It declares: “In order to win the debate, it is necessary to not only provide more convincing arguments, but also to specify the information sources, to demonstrate respectful attitude to the opponent and to write text with a minimum amount of grammatical mistakes.” - DebateArt

So, I am to understand that "In order to win the debate..." is not a requirement, but a suggestion? Sorry, words mean things, and these do not mean that. It was the crux argument of my debate, and I'll stand on it, worlds without end. That was the requirement BEFORE DebatArt fell into saying it was just a suggestion, and he apologized to me for replying to my opponent, not being told he was making a debate argument for my opponent.