fauxlaw

Benjamin, your argument to Edge is an impassioned, and mostly legitimate argument, except for one detail: the legal definition of "human," at present, is conflicted because of 1 USC 8, compared to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act [2004], which calls the unborn victim of violence to the mother causing death of both "a victim of murder." Only humans can be murdered, legally. All other living things are merely killed. Murder is a distinctive act to humans, only, which, by this law, includes the unborn. I suppose the difference is that abortion is not considered a violent act, though I imagine a fetus so treated, if it had a voice, would not accept that consideration.

I ask the question to those favoring abortion: What if the fetus , by natural selection [mutation] develops the ability to resist abortion? What, then? To date, no answer.

I'd agree with that, and I take your word that you do not agree with abortion, so I'd think you'd agree that an unborn, having human DNA, though not legally afforded the title "human" by law, at least 1 USC §8, they are still innocent sufficient to be accorded human rights. Besides, the law also recognizes the death of an unborn killed due to another's violent act against the mother as murder of the unborn, as well, so the law is clearly conflicted on the point.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to ignore Biden. He even has a visual gaffe, on firstday, to his credit; maskless at the Lincoln Mem. He can't help it.

You're still not happy. Still complaining, now bombing Westminster to off Chamberlain, who was an utter fool. Nevertheless, note who is advocating the bombing. Not a Trump supporter, are you? [I knew that]  Neither did Trumpies attack the Capitol. They went peacefully to voice their opposition. Voice only. Careful the examples you use; they may bite back.

introduced in Congress 2/7/2019, "Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."

It is not open minded; that's the point. A net-zero condition is exactly as described in my Mars scenario

If a character in an obvious morality tale about the sins of ignoring environment litters as contrary to her hopes to still find some evidence that Earth can be restored tells all I need to know about the closed mind of a Greenie. The mistake [I wonder if that was adlib, or was the toss in the script? - it is, at least, a film, and message editing snafu] is what it is. Either way, a poor message. A piss poor message.

The EO does not mention the mandate is not required if outdoors. The Lincoln Memorial, however, does qualify as a Federal Building, and it is on Federal land.

This string was inspired by Fr. Franklin's topic from a year ago, "AI will kill us all." In this string, I am saying the GND will also kill us all. Here's why:

In a movie from 2019, "Io" [as in Jupiter's volatile moon]

"In a post-apocalyptic time, the earth has been rendered toxic, and most of humanity has abandoned the planet and colonised one of Jupiter's moons, IO. But young scientist Sam Walden has stayed behind and dedicated herself to finding a way for human beings to survive on Earth." [from a film critic  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3256226/

Another critic said, "The amount of the stuff happens in this movie is perfect for a short film. Unfortunately it is now just 90 minutes of boredom."

What I found fascinating is that in the first two minutes of an obvious morality tail about the sins of environmental destruction, which only the GND will solve, Sam, our intrepid female scientist, gathers water from a puddle in the street on toxic Earth to test it. The test doesn't matter because Sam, in an absent moment not edited out of the morality tale that should have been on the cutting room floor, tossing the wrapper of the glass vial... in a recycling bin? God, no! on the street, of course!

When we actually do land on Mars to colonize it, we will discover, to our shame, an ancient, long-since decimated intelligent culture. We will find record of the sad story of their effort to revive a dying civilization due to something they called "climate change," and had something similar to the GND. They succeeded in eliminating all emissions, reaching a net-zero condition by eliminating all sources of methane emission: all living things. Congratulations. life finds a way, even if it must come from Earth, and all our recycling.

I don't, but you do do. Just want to make sure you are armed with facts before saying something stupid.

not my call, is it?

Biden's firsr EO was a mandate to wear masks while on federal property:  https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/01/on-day-1-biden-to-issue-mask-mandate-for-federal-employees-reinstate-diversity-training/

Hours later, Biden is at Lincoln Memorial, maskless - a visual gaffe:   https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/biden-maskless-at-lincoln-memorial-hours-after-mandate/

The Lincoln is no longer federal property. As Jim Nabors once said, "Shazam!"

I have the perfect remedy. It worked for me [mostly] during Oba'a. I ignored him. He, too, made huge gaffes, as will Biden, such as, "There comes a time when you have made enough money."

So, he's gone. Is everybody happy now?

I didn't think so. Y'all don't know what that is.

tmi

Tom Cruise was on-set recently and blew up at the cast and crew for not wearing masks during downtime between takes, as if somehow, by movie magic, it's okay to be maskless during a take. The guy's an idiot. Either masks are mandatory [as it appears Biden is going to mandate by EO - and if one is good, why not two, as he has begum to wear], or they are not. This set of idiots [Biden and Cruise] can't seem to make up their minds...  assuming they have one.

From your #4

However, your #1 states the object of the ontology is "5. Therefore, God exists." You have made the leap from an mbg to God without a logical construct of one to the other.

Further, [and this is part of the problem with ontology], you ignore a simple, but made-more-difficult-process-because-we-are-doubtful-humans argument:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" [James 1 - actually, the entire chapter, so you go look for the verse cited - but I hate singling out single scriptures when the context is rarely contained therein, independently. If you need peanut butter, why go to a tile store? You want to know if God exists, ask him. No philosophy, just direst. communication. It works as it should both ways. Of course, one must first have the faith that God did not stop revealing to man once John was writing on Patmos any more than he did after the first seven days. Anyone who thinks otherwise is limiting God, and that is the first great sin. Who are we to tell him to shut up?

talk, talk.... show me the words Trump said.

that's what we watched today

Did I expect it to make sense to you? No, I did not.

Hint: it's election fraud when a governor and a sec of state change election laws instead ofd state legislatures. I know the law means little to you, but some of us depend on it to maintain civilization.

Virtue is a quality that extends beyond sex. Biden = virtue? Uhhhh.... I'll disagree.

Joe Biden's inauguration highlighted walls.

There were walls to keep Americans away from the traditional Inauguration parade.

Biden issues an EO to stop building the border wall to allow free passage of caravan aliens into the country.

This is supposed to be unity. Unity of whom? This is the United States of America, not the United States of the World.

Here's the first poem I ever published, in Feb 1969, when I was 18, just after the inauguration of Nixon, whom I disliked intensely. It was written in honor of Bobby, whose campaign I worked in, and was present in the Ambassador Hotel where he was assassinated, and also for MLK, in a time when I thought some books ought to be burned. I've changed my mind on that, but never the other sentiments.

The Measure of a Man
  
 
The measure of a man is nothing more
Than the impulse of his cardio-ticker-tape,
Or the illegible scrawl from the electroencephalograph.
 
That is what the textbooks say,
The textbooks should be burned.
 
The measure of a man is nothing more
Than the calibrations of an eight-foot ruler,
Or the collaboration of his weight through the window of a scale.
 
That is what the textbooks say;
The textbooks should be burned.
 
The measure of a man is nothing more
Than the genius of his eminent mind,
Or the generosity of his ceaseless heart.
 
That is what the textbooks should have said,
And now the men are dead.

I left gambling with money behind in my 20s. Didn't get rich by stuffing my face with money, bud. Sorry you have so little regard for your face, and your money. Why do you assume a bet is only valid with money? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

Good point, but I wonder if Kammie's early exist was a push by the party promising her the brass ring even then...

I'm sure the Democrat Convention of 1952 is beyond your memory. look at it. The virtual convention of 2020 looked just like it, with a twist that the party allowed the nomination of Biden with a plan to rid themselves of him.

I believe I've laid my bet. Yours?

Thanks.

I will further add that even the pro-choice argument of viability [able to function post-womb] is being accomplished at earlier and earlier points in gestation, completely obliterating the idea of not just late, but mid-term abortion. The record is a successful premature birth at nineteen weeks.

You claim things that are not true all the time. What else should one think?

The difference is, I don't claim to be a history buff, even though I have a History PhD.

The APA is not a language authority. Period. And, yes, for the third time, the "gender = sex" is a DIRECT QUOTE from the OED, your "experts" be damned. I happen to own the printed volumes [20 in total] of the 2nd edition [costing me over $1,000], plus an online subscription. You do not tell me I am wrong. The OED is THE recognized premier source of dictionary definition in the English lexicon, not APA. God, when is that going to sink in ?

“…it was never meant (Congress)should provide for that welfare but by exercise of enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.…I think the… rejection of this bill a fortunate incident. Every State will certainly concede the power; and this will be a national confirmation of the grounds of appeal to them, & will settle forever the meaning of this phrase, which by mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power.” - Thomas Jefferson on the assumption that Congress has power not enumerated to it. Seems he could apply the same "grammatical quibble" to your posts.

poor choice of words. You do see, don't you, that one can read your commentary as admitting Trump is wildly popular, and that he didn't lose. your words, not mine. How many people did Biden attract at his handful of campaign rallies compared to Trump rallies? Like it or not, GA and PA did change their election laws, but not by their respective legislatures. That's not lawful according to their own election legislations.

Unfortunately, at least legally [as opposed to morally, and I do support your position] 1USC §8 stipulates that a "human" is not "human" until fully "born alive." I disagree with the current legal definition because, by DNA, that entity is human by genetics from the point of conception when its DNA is established. It will never be anything else but human at birth, so it should be considered human at conception, not just at birth. Further, since the zygote/embryo/fetus, plus all amniotic, placental, and umbilical tissue shares DNA, and not with the mother, none of the tissue is "part of" the mother's body, regardless of privacy rights of the 4A and 14A declaring the woman's right to her own body. The placenta and amniotic sac, and everything in it is much like a ping pong ball held in a fist. The fist fully contains the ball, but open the fist, what happens? If it were not so, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out but for the distinction that her tongue truly is part of her body.

None of that is moral truth, but it is scientific truth.

Why not cite your source? What. we're supposed to go hunt for it? if it's worth argument, it's worth citing. Give us a link.

I cited an article in my post #14. You ignore that I referenced the OED, itself, in my post #9, re-cited here:

"According to the OED, relative to human biologic condition, "gender = sex," i.e., male or female. Only in grammar is "gender" defined as nouns  and pronouns[sometimes verbs] which are masculine, feminine, neutral, or common. Only by cancel culture phenomenon is the biologic condition of "gender" multiplied beyond male and female. Many multi-gender advocates refer to the variations as a ""social construct." Sorry, words mean what they mean. Only by cultural majority do meanings change over time, because culture drives language; not the other way around."

You read me like many read the Constitution: by selective, cafeteria treatment. Read everything I said and stop accusing me of not saying what I clearly did say. 

I have shown, by a proper read of the OED, that gender and sex are the same thing. I'll take authority over counter culture any day. The OED trumps APADP every day

With Trump no longer a a valid target, and with making movies a foregone failure if Tom Cruise has his way, who will Hollowood attack? Biden or Kammie?

Who wins the Silly Bowl?

Who is the halftime show? The "wanna buy a car" clown?

I'm taking bets on Kammie's engagement of the 25A, in fulfillment of the predicted [by Biden, for one] Harris administration. My personal bet: by 30 April, 2021; 100 days from inauguration.

D's scriptural scholarship, as he continuously reminds us, is second to none, and that probably includes Jesus. Wonder why he is compelled to remind us when it ought to be self-evident, if true. Must be false.

People on Hillaryous Balloon Girl's hit list.

Yes. not long ago, voting on a debate [I forget which] this subject came up. I read am article cited by one of the opponents re" Senomyx and remember this controversy whether or not Senomyx used aborted fetal cells in its product. I was confused myself until a second read revealed that the writer did indicate that these fetal cells were used in texting their product, not in the product itself. Something about the cells' ability to sense sweetness with a measurable response, but that fetal cells were never in contact, or used with product that was shipped, but only product that was tested, then discarded. I remember the issue being a key decision point for my vote.

I am going to take some liberties in talking about oromagi's singular debate loss, as I feel somewhat responsible for turning the tide against his win by voting against his arguments. The debate was https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564-thbt-wikipedia-is-a-more-reliable-source-for-information-than-fox-news. with Fruit-Inspector. I won't raise the debate discussion; that is immaterial to my commentary here.

First, let me assure that I highly respect oromagi for his debate skill. I call him relentless, and he is a formidable opponent from whom I have learned much. We disagree on much that is discussed here, and that's ok; I still consider him a friend.

oromagi represented my first debate loss, of which I have nine, at present, of 49 current completed debates iin my 10 months of membership. That loss had nothing to do with my vote RFD in his debate noted above. I never expected to have an unbeaten record, so although first, it was just another loss. Our debate was a brilliant stroke on his part.

The above debate, not so much, and the purpose of this post is to equate it to a series of chess matches I once had with my oldest brother, who is now in the long beyond. My brother was a master chess player, able to play multiple matches simultaneously, and almost always won. His IQ approached 170. He taught me how to play when I was 5 [he, 13] I never, ever beat him until I was 16, but I considered the win flawed because our mother constantly interrupted his play, but he was too honorable to complain. I won by her distraction, so I don't count it. 2 years later, in an uninterrupted match, I played him to a draw. I saw the possibility four moves in advance. Once seeing it, it was utterly dependent on his making moves that would not deter the outcome. He didn't see it until my last, decisive move that trapped his king in the one safe square on the board, and with no other moves of other pieces available. When he saw it, and realized what my move meant, tears came to his eyes and said, "Well done. Did you see it before you made it happen?" "I did, four moves ago," i said. "Very well done," he replied. He was very proud of me. However, he and I never played another match but that he turned from the table, never seeing his or my moves. The matches were played entirely out of his head while I played looking at the board. I never beat him again.

That is how I feel about oromagi's debate play, and his being distracted, I think, on his one loss.  "Well done, oromagi."

It is just the opposite, but not by an initial undermining condition: free will is the cause of causality. Free will exists first as a thought to decide to act, or not. The results of the thought may generate action, and that acting result undermines any other thought of acting otherwise. Creation began with opposition; to act or not to act, to be good, or evil, and the consequences follow. Every thought and action that is contrary to maintaining free will limits, or undermines our ongoing action, if not our thoughts. The demonstration of this principle is contained in Genesis 2 - the introduction of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which God said:  “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”  Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 8, 9. Further, God instructed Adam "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." [Holy bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17

Note that Adam was given free will to eat of any tree in the garden, including the tree of knowledge, but that the tree of knowledge had a unique, limiting consequence. God is allowing Adam to eat it. Yes, God does ay, "Thou shalt not..." but most commandments stop there. This one is offered with the added proviso, ""for in the day that thou eatest thereof..."  God is giving Adam the free will to eat of it, or not, warned that there will be a dire consequence if Adam does eat of it. No, he did not die that very "day," but in some future day.

As an aside, that usage of "day" in this verse might give us a hint that Moses was not speaking of a 24-hour day when speaking of the creation days. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve spent in the garden before eating of the good/evil tree. A thousand years. Two weeks? We don't know. Nor should we assume otherwise. The "evening and morning of the first day... and second day" occured before there was an earth to have 24 hours in its day.

So, as Democrats in the Senate lick their chops, now that they will officially control the Senate after inauguration [because until inauguration, Kammie is not the tie-breaker] over a trial on impeachment...

Wait, that may not happen at all, because in spite of an ill-advised second House impeachment of Trump, it must be decided, by interpretation of the Senates power to try an impeachment after the President has left office - and the Constitution is fairly clear, since "removal from office" would not be a consequence as of noon tomorrow...

... is disqualification an automatic? No, the Senate votes on that issue separately. Are both issues automatic, i.e., removal and disqualification from holder future office? No, because of the last answer.  Can the Senate not vote to remove, but still vote to disqualify, i.e., remove, or disqualify?  No. The operative word is "and," not "and/or," or simply "or,"  therefore, if the Senate takes up the trial, their must be a conviction/acquittal vote, and only then would the Senate decide to vote on disqualification. That is, unless you want to treat the Constitution like a cafeteria, in which the words can be altered at will. But, that's how Democrats read the Constitution, anyway.

Maryland v. King [2013] SCOTUS decision determined that a buccal swab [saliva test] is not invasion of privacy, [does not violate the 4A and 14A] and a buccal swab will tell you exactly that.

It looks like what you have: "Social media" banning members whose opinions do not match the party line. More than Trump are being banned. Hundreds have been and are being banned. I'm no longer on Twitter, either, so I know what shytestorm you've got.

That's your concern? Sure, pedo is bad, but that's not the spear you fear. It's free market capitalism you fear

Free medical care is a better message?

Free education is a better message?

Free salary just for being alive, but not willing to work is a better message?

A one-way conversation is a better message?

Frankly, I don't care. However, I'd prefer there be more than "social construct" to demonstrate multiple genders. We don't get to invent how many moons we have. More to the point, we don't socially construct choices of hair color but by artificial means, so why expect we should construct multiple genders? As a demographic, gender does not change anything in our infrastructure but two types of bathrooms, and some private club memberships.

I'm not forgetting anything. Yes, nature screws up, sometimes. You cannot, however, observe results and not perceive that at an origin, humans have but two gametes; a male and a female. In the case of biologic hermaphroditism, the person shows external features, and reproductive systems, that are combined male and female in a variety of expressions and functions. But the instance is extremely rare. There is not a resulting "green" gender other than by social, but not biologic construct.  https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism

Spot on. The drift from theory to fact, let alone thought to action, is all too easily conceived, but self-control will arrest the transfer.  

By natural means, they are, by a fraction of a percent, both girl and boy - 100% by additive means. This is your original, biological hermaphrodite, yes? Any other means, including by "choice" is an after-the-fact, artificial decision and means to alter what is had at birth. I don't buy artificial as a legit sex or gender, shrinks, or not.

Well, at best, that only happens less than one percent, bio-genetically. And I can photoshop back to blue and yellow. And out of none it do you get red.

Which side of the argument wants to censure? The left, whether you call yourselves liberal, progressive, socialist... whatever.

But, none of you will articulate why you feel the need to not just censure, but to completely ban? In the absence of a reasonable argument, what must I conclude?

Of what are you afraid? It is fear, because you cannot offer a rational explanation. Is it that you disagree? Are you afraid that conservative influencers have a message you cannot combat directly but by censure? Tough shyte. Disagree. Abandon censure with a better argument. That's what rational, civilized people do

Nope. But, then, my information on Jesus is not derived from the the ordinary media. Your own Oxford University should be guide: Dominvs Illvminatio Mea.