Total posts: 4,363
What's stupid is that a debate on racism had one vote, and it wasn't any of the dozen-plus of you on this string. That's stupid. Sorry to interrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Well, there's the beauty of heaven. I think its our dreams come true, just about whatever they are. My dreams run a little different than yours, but... well, I guess that's why it's heaven. To each our own. May fav color is red, there will be frogs, chocolate [dark], Ferrari [reed, of course], I'll take kebobs on one corner, but lobster on another, and something I've never had before on a third, and that leaves a surprise. One woman: just more time with my bride with whom I've already shared 47 years of bliss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Yes, you're right there. I think we will find heaven more glorious that anyone can imagine, and so, very pleasantly surprised.
Created:
Posted in:
2nd edition Gratitude:
I am, on this day in particular, grateful for my Savior, Jesus Christ, he who, more than all others of his gifts, atoned for me. It was not just for my sins, only on the condition that I repent and change my heart [for if my heart has not changed, nor have my actions, and I turn confession into a revolving door, and no one is forgiven for that. It takes more than just personal admission that Jesus is the Christ. I must change my heart to become more Christlike today than yesterday, and so on, day by day. But he atoned for so much more than that. He atoned for my sorrows, my suffering, my mistakes that are not sins, but manage to make a mess of things that should be orderly and at peace. My personal belief is that he even atoned for Satan. It is an infinite atonement, and that is for more than just sin.
My family crest’s motto is “le mieux que je peux,”or “the best that I can.” A few years ago, when a re-drew the crest and framed it, I added to the motto, “pour vous,”or, “for you.” It just seemed like the right thing to do. The best that I can for, just seems selfish, and I hope God smiles on my addition, for what purpose in there in doing my best if it does not help someone else, and maybe God will smile a little more broadly that I repent so that my place her is more appreciated by others than just myself, and God be willing to forgive just a little more because I’m trying to put my heart in the right place. As James Madison once wrote, “If men were angels, we would not need government.” Would that be a wonderful thing that we each care for one another and end our strife with one another?
I am, on this day in particular, grateful for my Savior, Jesus Christ, he who, more than all others of his gifts, atoned for me. It was not just for my sins, only on the condition that I repent and change my heart [for if my heart has not changed, nor have my actions, and I turn confession into a revolving door, and no one is forgiven for that. It takes more than just personal admission that Jesus is the Christ. I must change my heart to become more Christlike today than yesterday, and so on, day by day. But he atoned for so much more than that. He atoned for my sorrows, my suffering, my mistakes that are not sins, but manage to make a mess of things that should be orderly and at peace. My personal belief is that he even atoned for Satan. It is an infinite atonement, and that is for more than just sin.
My family crest’s motto is “le mieux que je peux,”or “the best that I can.” A few years ago, when a re-drew the crest and framed it, I added to the motto, “pour vous,”or, “for you.” It just seemed like the right thing to do. The best that I can for, just seems selfish, and I hope God smiles on my addition, for what purpose in there in doing my best if it does not help someone else, and maybe God will smile a little more broadly that I repent so that my place her is more appreciated by others than just myself, and God be willing to forgive just a little more because I’m trying to put my heart in the right place. As James Madison once wrote, “If men were angels, we would not need government.” Would that be a wonderful thing that we each care for one another and end our strife with one another?
Created:
Posted in:
Typically, we do a poor job of understanding
1. Definition
2. Syntax
3. That language is driven by culture, not the other way around. Meaning that interpretation, for the Constitution and at least the Bill of Rights [1 - 10A], must be read and interpreted from an 18th century syntax, not a 21st, but concluding that the same purposes of the 18th century might just still be shared in the 21st.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What is regulated, militia, necessity, security, and free state? What is a right, the people, keep, bear, arms, and infringed? Look these up in a dictionary that will give you 18th century meaning. The OED, unabridged, for example. Merriam-Webster won't cut it. Few dictionaries today will give you the complete etymology of every word in the lexicon. The OED does. That's why it occupies fully 20 volumes of definition, etc.
The pre-emptive phrase is conditional, but is not the only purpose of the concluding phrase, but was, at the time [1780s] critical to the populace. Do think, for example, that a "well-regulated militia" needed to have members with their own weapons [is an "arm" to be understood to be only a gun? - look it up - for the period - 1780s], and should those weapons be, themselves, "well-regulated," as in good working order such that they can be utilized at a moment's notice for whatever purpose? For example [from my OED]: 1766 J. Trusler Difference between Words I. 25 By arms, we understand those instruments of offence, generally, made use of in war; such as fire-arms, swords, &c.
If their arms are in good working order, can they be used for other pursuits, remembering that Safeway was a couple of centuries away? Or did the concept of "infringed" imply only that arms could be used only for purposes of a militia? It says, "not infringed," doesn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Heaven is "just like New York City, or Chicago?" Really? Why would I want to go there? Heaven is like nothing presently on Earth. Your "just like" is entirely a slipped metaphor. Words cannot describe heaven, it is so glorious, peaceful, joyful and incomparable. Just like NYC? Seen it, lately? I have. Not a place remotely like heaven. My favorite movie is "Field of Dreams" because it attempts to make heaven, and, for brief moments, achieves it. The last ten minutes are heaven, if only to give a guy struggling to keep a farm for building heaven on a baseball field, just to have a catch with his dad. And you want to muck it up with NYC? Sorry about your heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
My expectation is that Harris will invoke the 25th in the first quarter, and the construct of the apparent cabinet will willingly declare an incompetence. I doubt seriously that Biden is the Party as boasted in the debate, and that Harris was his pick. The Party's, yes, but not his.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
As you begin with the failing tactic of personal attack, can I believe the rest? Give it a rest, my friend, it is your opinion that mine is braindead, but then, does not familiarity breed contempt? Careful that your mirror does not get in the way of your barns. Have a civil tongue
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
The problem I see with your Kid is his derision of Hitchens, who gives away the store in his introfuctory comments that he viscerally hates his side of the argument: defending God. As Hitchens is... well, we know, don't we, why in hell would he give it his best shot? The Kid does no better; he's as pompous an ass as is Hitchens. And from this, I'm supposed to question my own convictions on the matter; the existence of God? This was no "strong case against religion;" it was two pomposities trying to outdo one another, with one unaware that the Kid is there at all. The Kid notes, with some nail polishing, that he actually once met Hitchens and declares that Hitchens was not "particularly fond of my admittedly presumptuous..." and we can stop right there because I suspect that the one [guess who] was more fascinated by the other than vice versa. La-di-da. The utter waste of sensibility on the youth. If Hitchens was not impressed, there's little wonder. And this is the best that you, Checkmate, can provide as argument that there is a strong case against religion? Pardon my untimely belch.
Let us recall the motto of Oxford College: Dominus illuminatio mea
Created:
Posted in:
IF
[if, because no one is President-Elect until the Electoral College declares a winner on Dec 14: - the media be damned because it was never up to them]
Joe Biden becomes 46:
the time to answer my question from last spring comes due: Who will be the President if Joe Biden is elected?
List of givens:
1. Joe Biden, much as much as he has tried, is not a Progressive; he's an ordinary liberal [there is a distinction]
2. The Progressives occupy the majority of the House and Senate Democrat seats.
3. Joe Biden has declared he is the Party, but his sensibilities are as noted in #1.
4. Joe Biden faces a wall of manipulating Progressives [including his VP pick] who demand that he bend to their will.
5. Joe Biden's dogs are not all barking anymore, and that is daily becoming more obvious - too many gaffes for a forthright leader of a party.
Do you honestly think Joe Biden's ordinary liberalism will push back against the pressure of the Progressive [read Socialist] agenda? Has your utter hatred of Trump blinded your vision of the next four years? All I'll say is your bed is prepared and you best be willing to sleep in it.
Created:
Posted in:
I have been advised to use the next seven days, culminating on Thanksgiving Day, to take a moment each day to express gratitude for my many blessings, whether or not they are deserved. I look upon blessings, not as rewards, but as challenges to do better, to be better, to seek better today than yesterday, to make tomorrow a greater blessing than today. In that perspective, I am grateful for the advice of Malachi, that last prophet of the Old Testament, whose wisdom included the recommendation to not just expect blessings, but to prepare a place for them, lest most be wasted for the lack of preparing for them. If we hope for a circle of friends, we'd best prepare the circle such that they have place to dwell in our hearts if they cannot be with us, or prepare the table in advance of their coming. This year, that may not be as possible in person as in years past, or, hopefully, as will be in the future. Prepare anyway, or the blessing will be wasted. Sermon over.
So, today, I am grateful for the many expressions of friendship from you. Though I personally know none of you, I'm grateful for your comments, ideas, suggestions, and even your challenges. You make me a better person, and I hope that is reciprocal. Tomorrow, another gratitude.
I challenge you to do the same, and see if, after the week, we are not all healed of some of our misgivings, trials, ills, and just plain malaise. just by being more grateful then than we are today.
Created:
Posted in:
"Cause" is a word overplayed by this string. My OED defines "cause" as: "That which produces an effect; that which gives rise to any action, phenomenon, or condition. Cause and effect are correlative terms."
The issue of whether words, spoken, written, or represented by abstract graphics must be broken down, not by simply the record of a third-person, impartial observer watching person 2 first seeing/reading/interpreting something person 1 produced in writing, speaking, or graphically produced. No, it is the [subjective person 3] analysis of person 2's interpretation of person 1's product. As we [collectively being person 3] cannot witness what person 2 thinks in interpretation, we can only observe the reaction, if any, of the second person. But to surmise cause, we leap beyond logic to assume that the first person's product caused the second person's visible [to us] reaction. We do not see the interpretation performed by the second person. Given our endowed free agency [granted, not in all countries, but I speak of the U.S.] we can only assume the cause is the product of person 1, or, in the subject at hand, the Bible. However, it's that interpretive step by person 2 we ignore. Is not that the cause of person 2's action, good or bad? Person 2 could decide to do nothing, as well as decide to act badly. "The devil made me do it" is a popular excuse, particularly in this P.C.-drivel world of personal victimization, but I don't buy it for a second. Each person is, 99.9% of the time, personally responsible for their personal actions. Period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Dem presidents could have done these things, but none did.
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Yeah, that's all fucked up. For you. Sorry about you.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Dem presidents could have done these things, but none did.
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Yeah, that's all fucked up. For you. Sorry about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Thank you for conceding the discussion. It saved me having to read more of your pretentious drivel.
Sometimes, you say something useful. Back at ya, bud. Bye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Sorry if I replace "humble" with "weak." He espouses leading from behind. Gen. Eisenhower demonstrated the results of that kind of leadership with a simple length of string on a table. With the string laid straight, he pushed on one end of the string. Does the string move forward? No, it gathers up in a confused jumble. One leads from ahead, or one does not lead. Period. From behind, one has a weak leader and a useless gathering of fools. One would have thought that was obvious in the Oba'a/Biden jumbled gathering one calls an administration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
1. Show where I say that man's intelligence [that was the subject, after all] is related to all other animals, as if there is an equivalent value of intelligence between them. No, there is not. Man is the superior intellect of the animal kingdom, bar none. Sticks and stones, my friend. Keep hurling; you may empty your gut.
2. Show me where I imply the law is morality. They are separate constructs, just like intelligence.
3. I said animals with canines are disposed, by the design, to eat meat. It is the purpose for having canines, to tear flesh, just as molars are for the purpose of masticating vegetation. Same with the various enzymes in saliva to begin the process of digesting specific types of food. These have been my consistent arguments. That canines MUST only be used to tear flesh, or that molars can ONLY chew is the naturalistic fallacy.
4. Show me where I said specifically that animals only have instinct, that they do not have learned behavior or the ability to do some thought processing. Refer to #1. I said only that animals do not have an ability to predict harm and act accordingly. I said they have a fear response, but the qualification of that fear is not a processing of potential harm, but only of outright survival.
5. Your spelling is unnecessary, since it has not been proven that animals can pre-sage harm, even though they know harm while it happnes. Regardless animals are harmed, and I do not dispute it. But as for a pile of bricks, it can be harmed, as well, even if not having the living sense of being harmed. According to the OED: harm [n], "Evil (physical or otherwise) as done to or suffered by some person or thing; hurt, injury, damage, mischief. Often in the set phrase ‘to do more harm than good’." My double PhD has not the capacity to comprehend a bloody thing. They are inanimate. Does my keyboard, on which my fingers literally crash [I replace a keyboard annually] comprehend being pounded? Does the paper [like my PhDs] I used to load into my typewriter comprehend being pounded? Rhetorical questions, I hope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
You said intelligence *IN* animals, not intelligence *RELATIVE* to humans.
Last I checked, man is a member of the animal kingdom, therefore, the intelligence of al members of the4 kingdom is relative. If you want to be a carrot, be my guest.
"Murder" is a legal term that is (you'll love this word) *related* to morality, but isn't morality in itself.
Related, but it isn't. A man is related to a woman [every one of my half of the species is], but he isn't a woman. Wow. That's profound. Was that from Kellogg's, of Post?
You were the one implying that canine teeth were designed for tearing meat,
Yes, I did. And it follows, as I then argued that people use tools for different purposes than designed for, and that is innovation. How does that argue against myself.I do not discount innovation. What I'm saying, genius, is that the tool, a canine tooth, was designed to tear flesh, not a carrot. That a tool's designcan be emplyed fore another purpose does not negate the designed purpose. Get it? II didn't think so.
I will absolutely say that an animal is aware that it is being harmed,
To conclude that an animal can sense being in the act of being harmed is pathetically obvious. What I contend, is that an animal's reaction to the fear instinct, such as sensing a possible threatening presence from a hundred yards away [like a deer facing a hunter] is not a specific harm instinct but a non=specific survival instinct. It does not know it will be harmed until it is. The cow facing the slaughterhouse has the same instinctual reaction, but to say it is the fear of harm, which may or may not be fatal, is anthropomorphic imposition on the animal. If it were otherwise, that same deer, a buck, which has the instinct to battle with other bucks, an activity that can certainly be harmful, yet its instinct overcomes the fear, because it cannot think far enough ahead to assess whether the battle will be fatal.
I'm telling you to not eat meat
But, you will rebut my telling you to put the carrot down. No, I don't have that kind of arrogance, because I eat carrots, too. Like I said, I'm an omnivore. But, since you insist on applying a morality to eating meat, who says your morality of eating a carrot is any more superior to my morality to eat an animal? You.ve entirely ignored that argument. Convenient.
Wrong. You made the initial claim: morality has no nexus with meat-eating
Wrong. See my argument above. Since you are demanding an explanation of morality, when I contend morality of eating isn't relevant, it is to you to explain your one-on-none "discussion."
Yes, because killing animals to eat them causes them no harm.Idiot.
No, because killing carrots to eat them causes them no harm, to use you line. Salot.
Eating animals *INVOLVES* abusing animals. You have to kill it to eat it, unless you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.
Eating carrots *INVOLVES* abusing carrots. You don't even have to kill it to eat it, you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.
Your logic; I'm just refitting different elements to the logic, but the logic holds. You're just as cruel to a carrot. At least I put the animal out of its misery, quickly and efficiently. So tell me my morality [which I claim isn't a factor] is inferior, and prove it. So far, you're an argument failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Please stop publicly masturbating.
Premarture efactulation again?
Created:
Posted in:
Pretense is the nonsense that defense is a fence.
Firstly, intelligence isn't relative
Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?
Secondly, you didn't address the sentiment of his question: is the fact that animals are less intelligent than humans
As I said, relative intelligence is not the factor of greatest importance. And it is not a moral question, either, since we cannot murder other animals animals, only humans.
It is a matter of morality because that was the question asked.
That would imply that even illogical questions have morality. Nonsense. That is not a given. A claim, yes, but not all claims are valid, are they?
This is a naturalistic fallacy in that you assume our canine teeth, due to evolutionary design, must be used to tear flesh.
Your claim of a naturalist fallacy is, itself, fallacious. You ignore that a tool designed for a specific purpose can only be used for the designed purpose. So, people who use a screwdriver as a stirring stick for a screwdriver cocktail are fallacious? No, just innovative.
Unless you can demonstrate harm in not using canine teeth in such a way, it is entirely possible to not use those canine teeth for such a use, especially when said usage demands harm to animals.
I can certainly have my canines removed to put small molars in their place, but such would be inefficient relative to cost and the extended time required to fully masticate meat. And, you cannot say the animal is aware of being harmed to use it as a food source. You're going to have to obtain that testimony from the animal. Harm is a self-generated claim. Good luck with that.
you haven't demonstrated that said enzyme must be used
I cannot designate which enzyme in my saliva can be turned off. Can you do so to stop the digestion of vegetable matter if I claim a carnivor's right to demand an end to eating vegetables? And what of the harm done to vegetables you claim is the right of animals to claim as a morally superior position? Are not vegetables also living things?
Merely stating that "morality has no nexus with meat-eating" doesn't make it so -- you need to demonstrate this conclusion through argumentation.
You first. You're the one claiming moral superiority of eating only vegetation. I'm claiming morality has naught to do with humans eating anything but other humans. Your prior claim takes timely precedent. Je vous en pris.
Nonsense. Animal abuse incurs criminal penalties in the developed parts of the world. Albeit, currently, not all animals have the fortune of this protection.
Animal abuse is an entirely different matter than killing an animal with the express purpose of eating it. Do you not pick a living carrot from the ground with the express purpose of eating it? Why should your morality be the deciding factor? We're both doing the same thing to living things.
Furthermore, if you have no moral qualms with using a shovel to smack a dog until you crush its skull
But I do have moral qualms about hitting a dog with a shovel to crush its skull. I would use the best weapon to kill the dog, but only do so to eat it. My purpose is not abuse, but specifically to eat, and the two are entirely different purposes. By the way, I have eaten dog meat in China. Not bad, really. But you're not the best judge of that. I've also eaten roasted locusts. Roasted peppers are very good, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? As I said, Ma gavte la nada: Please remove the cork. The cork that is a pretense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It appears "most of them" was a comment from HistoryBuff
Created:
Posted in:
Assumption: Biden has a popular vote advantage of roughly 6M votes, doubling Hillaryous Balloon Girl.
Assumption: Biden will be the President-Elect [he's not yet because the Electoral College has not yet spoken, and the Constitution does not acknowledge the press' opinion]
Assumption: A popular presidential pick has coattails for down-ballot success.
So, why has the Democrat House lost seats, and the Senate leadership depends on a run-off race if all the above are true?
Blue wave? Nope, but there sure is a lot of hot gas from regions I'd prefer to ignore. And y'all complain about GHGs affecting climate change? Are you kidding me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
So which do you value as a pecking order of either loyalty or integrity: truth or fact, since Hidin' Biden believes they're separate terms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Ma gavte la nata
[you consult the first hit]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And you have, thereby, completely lifted the purpose of curiosity from the human mind. If I should prove everything I state, what purpose has your own mind? What of critical thinking on your own? Too busy? You adopt the life of sponge? Sponge Bob Squarepants? Your choice, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Well, that is certainly a point to consider, and the fact is, I have been in a situation, in a Thai jungle, where, after an hour of carefully picking a path where there was no worn path to follow [too much foliage under foot and at all levels up], and, being alone, I suddenly realized I was no longer at the top of the food chain. That is very, very sobering. I'd say most people in a first-world country never experience that. Something close to it I experienced, also in Thailand, was scuba diving off a jetty about 200 feet from shore at only 30 feet in depth. About 10 feet from the bottom, I swam slowly beyond the underwater tip of the jetty. The sand beneath me was void of anything. Side to side, nothing but water that receded from absolutely clear to medium blue. Then I straightened, floating head and body perpendicular to the sand, and I stared out seeing nothing but clear water and not another living thing in sight, and the water receded into darkness, like looking into eternity. I felt utterly alone, without anything seen to give me any sense of where I was. I could have turned around and easily seen seen the water become shallow. In the short distance to shore, I could have seen the water turn a ghostly white in tidal churning, but I didn't turn and I shook with sudden fear that I faced absolutely nothing at all. Good, God, that was a fright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Show me, please, that requirement in the Help Center under "Forum." Those are the rules of the road in DArt. I see no necessity of declaring justifications for claims. In DEbate, yes, but loosely specified since it is listed as a necessary item to be judged by voters, therefore, the presence of citations must be there to vote on them. Forum is not that ambiguous; it totally lacks the 'requirement.'
I simply believe in law. Absent a law, it cannot be imposed by whim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Since when does the forum require BoP? We do it, on occasion, but that is really a dominion of debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
since all the miracles are in the book of John
Evidence that you have not read even all the New Testament, let alone the Old. Read all of it. You need context and you don't have it. The Gospel of John is NOT John the Baptist. As I said, it is John the Beloved, one of the Apostles.
All of the miracles are NOT just in John., but are in all the Synoptic Gospels; Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well. For a quick look, since that appears to be the level of your research, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus But that's just in the Gospels. You'll find miracles in Acts [such as Christ's ascension, and the Apostles speaking in tongues, and Christ's appearance to Saul [Paul]]...
John the Baptist does not have a book attributed to him. READ with comprehension. Otherwise, the effort is useless. The whole bloody volume. When you have finished, read it again. And again. You think a first read is sufficient? In other languages would help, too. Better closer to the source than English.
You think I'm kidding, don't you? Nope. I wouldn't ask you to do anything I have not already done.
Created:
It's overtly obvious; the Party wanted to nominate a wimp who would be malleable. Joe Biden is a waning moderate, a wing of the Party that is virtually extinct. Joe Biden is the perfect melted wax that can be, as AOC said, manipulated. In effect, the Party did the same thing they did in 1952 - a brokered convention. Easier this time, being virtual. Re-imagined. Re-diculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Farewell. I'll raise a glass:
May your hearth and home be happy,
May your larder be full of bread,
May you be in heaven an hour,
Before the devil knows you're dead.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I, too, am curious. Are there more systems on Earth evident than physical? And if there are more than physical [actually, I believe there are, but I'm not going to bother to prove it] systems, what might they be, and why would we want to arbitrarily reduce them to merely the physical manifestations of Earth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JRob
Broken record? Why must I keep repeating that I am not talking about your vote text. It's the summary that you provided without anyone asking for it, and that I find as poorly written as your vote, thus justifying the report of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
It was John who performed the miracle of bringing Jesus therefore John did the miracle that allowed Jesus to perform the miracles that he did.
Show me how the Baptist "brought" Jesus. Jesus went to John to be baptized, but Jesus had to convince John to do it. Seems he who did the "bringing" was Jesus.
Show me that Jesus did not perform the miracle at Cana, but recognize these facts, first:
1. The miracle at the wedding feast in Cana is in the Gospel of John, but that is John the Beloved, not the Baptist. The Baptist is apparently not even in attendance; he is not mentioned.
2. Verse 11 clearly indicates it is Jesus who performs the miracle.
3. We are clearly told there are six pots, each capable of containing 2 - 3 firkins. A firkin is the equivalent of 41 liters [11 gal], or 82 to 123 liters each - not a small amount of wine, and that's just one of 6 pots. Must have been a big crowd, and a big miracle.I suppose you think the Baptist also fed the 5,000 with two fish and five loaves - and had 12 backets of leftovers after all had eaten their fill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Nothing to be sorry about. Appears we're both persona non grata. So be it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
My answer is precisely the process James describes in James 1: 2-8, which describes a sequence of tasks, the result of which, if applied with sincere intent to know, will have a response to a more generic question: "How do I know anything is true?" I refer you, as well, to a similar set of verses in the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4-5, which describes the exact same process with a little more detail, such as that the search for truth is wide open, just not in understanding the truth of the Bible.
My short version: If you want to know if the Word of God is true, ask Him, not me, or anyone else. It's a matter of personal revelation. What? Heaven is closed? And who, pray tell, told God that He no longer speaks? An idiot, that's who. Better that he should not have have opened his mouth. An idiot who really does not want more than has already been given is already lost. Let him find himself. Most don't even try to find out if what's given is true, so why would they want more? Who said there was an end of what there is to know? The same idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
A very interesting comparison in real history are the first children of the first Irish immigrants to the colonies in the early 17th century, who really are the first users of the tern, "Native American" ['American' is a European term, not indigenous] to distinguish themselves from later Irish immigrants. In fact, indigenous tribes did not refer to themselves as "Native Americans" until the 1960s.
I
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
If you want an original answer, we must access the Pentateuch, specifically, Exodus. It is traditionally, but not probably written by Moses, and we certainly have no text dating from 14th to 13th century BCE; the timeframe of Moses. As he was raised as an Egyptian, though Hebrew, he likely wrote most accurately in new kingdom hieroglyphs, in which I happen to be fluent. There is no Egyptian text of the Pentateuch dating from 1300 - 1400 BCE. Variations of Hebrew date to half in to the 1st century CE. Before that, paleo-Hebrew from about 700 BCE. Before that a variety of Caananite language roots. All that to give historic perspective to what may have originally been written attributed to Moses, for which we do not have a shred of evidentiary scrolls. The best we have date after the Common Era. In the closest we have to original text, Hebrew, the seventh verse of Exodus 20 that we know as "Thou shalt not kill," the Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew use a word that translates more correctly as "murder" than the common "kill."
"Murder," as I said, related exclusively to the purposeless ending of exclusively human life. YHWH [God] commanded a prohibition of murder likely because man is His greatest and last creation, and the life form created in His express image, whereas other life forms are not [including other primates, which are easily distinguished from man] and was saying that we have not the right to take what He has created as close to Himself as can be made for a preparatory being on the path toward perfection, as all life forms are. It is well known that the Ten Commandments, effectively the Law, has root in such earlier civil law as the Code of Hammurabi, but it is older than that, and always attributed to deity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Your source, Elsevier, is an open-access publisher, meaning, in essence, they're a vanity publisher because to publish in their "gold access," which reaches the most potential readers, the author pays a publishing fee. The best open-access peer-reviewed journals do not charge a publishing fee. That's what their own website says. That doesn't say much for reliability and credibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Murder, as opposed to killing, is strictly a legal distinction addressed only to our own species, Homo sapiens. It fits none of your four answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
No, it's an argument against a business entity representing itself as a harmless tweety bird when it is a predator. A logo is a graphic mark intended to aid business identity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
The distinction of killing and murder has at least two variables:
1. Killing is ending any life, not just human.
2. Murder is the deliberate ending of human life only, but no other living organism can be murdered. Murder is only a legal distinction.
As a result, you are limited in what an ending of life should be called.
Morality, having many outlets, not just one, varies in its distinction of whether killing is "right," or not. Otherwise, I will virtually guarantee that you occasionally wear clothes and use products originating from an animal or plant that was killed to obtain the raw material; an argument that leads to absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I think Stephen is talking to me. Maybe you too. Whatever, thin-skin, eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Free country, bud. Don't care however you ask. You own the beginning of the thread. After that, it's open season. And you seem to be able to communicate anyway, so, what's your beef?
Created:
Posted in:
Evolution of a thread. This one has changed its stripes. It began as a thread on presidential politics. Neither candidate fits the current evolutionary trend of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
difficult read as poetry as I am expecting meter, but its lacking, making it poetry-structured prose, but there is a distinction.
also, there's occasional hint of rhyme, but it's inconsistent, like the middle lines of stanzas three and four, and the first and third lines of stanza four.
It is the consistency of meter that distinguishes poetry, even if it does not rhyme. You have other examples of rhyming, but it seems accidental rather than intended. The greater problem is there are occasional examples of meter, but that also appears accidental, or at least not intended.
Poetry is a more difficult effort in order to achieve the meter that prose can have, but is not necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
With the suggestion that we put nuclear-powered generators on the Moon and Mars, how long before greenies start to complain that a non-renewable energy resource will cause climate change. Hint: there is no climate on the Moon, and a damn little on Mars. And what there is of climate on Mars, it's more than one ideal climate that whackos seek on Earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JRob
You mean, like the shade you threw by your vote? And then by publishing not just your vote, but a play-by-play analysis on the public forum rather than let the debate language itself prevail? If the summary was for your benefit, why did you publish it in Forum? Can't you glean wisdom from writing it for yourself, by yourself? Let's recall that following the publication of your analysis in Forum, you advise 3RU7AL "Here you go." If it was just for your clarification, you're certainly sharing it, contrary to your claim, because some of the the play-by-play is included in the post that contains the verbiage of your vote. Nice attempt at a justification, but, I don't buy it. And I have reported the vote.
Created: