fauxlaw

If you never used the source to asset facts, what is the assurance that Bill Barr is a chronic liar? That's an argument of cross-purposes.

Take a look at the stats I've offered to History Buff. You're lacking them, yourself. Hyperbole may generate protest, but rarely are protests the result of understanding just what the problem is by statistical analysis.

As usual, your arguments continue to be hyperbole without statistics to back them up. Well, here's some stats, Buff. I know how to research, and I have a History PhD., You?

There are over 3,000 counties and over 19,000 incorporated cities in the U.S.https://www.statista.com/statistics/241695/number-of-us-cities-towns-villages-by-population-size/  How many of those 19,000 cities have a police abuse issue of such rampant instances that require their de-funding? Care to look at the numbers of deaths caused by citizens against one another? Shall we de-fund citizens? That would align with your argument.

One sub-group of force in one city.  My argument holds. you are expanding a single instance to represent the entire country. No, can'rt get aw2ay with that.

Your superlatives betray your argument. 

but then you say

Are 57 men the entire force? No. You may say tyhey do consst of the entire force, but that's too easy. And t's wrong. So it's 57.  It is not "a;;." Stop saying it is. It isn't helping.

The Minneapolis City Charter prohibits the City Council to do what they have moved to do: Dedund the police. Oops.

Why do progressives assume that the police system is broken and must be defunded? IN MN, the MPD is 800 offers. Four of them are bad apples. That's 0.05%. Is that a broken system, or a minor number of bad actors. You're going to eliminate the force for that??? Not only is that ill-advised, it must be news to the M-City Council that it also happens to be contrary to the City Charter. oops. 

What happened to working within the system already established. I'm talking abut the judicial system as established by the Constitution of the United States, and that of every State in the Union. You know, the system in which suspects are charge, the prosecution pleads its case, and the evidence either convicts bad actors, or defense successfully denies it. Tat's how it's done, folks, and it has worked for 230 years. What's change? A clock? Sorry, no clocks in the Constitution other than expecting results in a reasonable period of timer. If that's not immediate from care to conviction, that's too damn bad. It still works much more often than it doesn't.

Meanwhile, how many backs have been murdered by other blacks in our city streets since George Floyd was killed, and why is no one marching for them? Don't those black lives matter, too?

Nope and that's painfully obvious, isn't it?

Is it really news that Julie's smart dog saved her little brother by dragging him out of a ditch? In Bumfux, MS where it happened, maybe so. In L.A.? Not so much.

Why restructure for the pitifully small percentage of police who are bad actors? Prosecute the bad actors. That's the only solution needed.

It's your source. Don't ask me to defend it. Or are you going to play cafeteria with this interview, like you do with the Constitution.

From your source at the end of the interview:

Those actions do not define a peaceful protest. End of your case.

I am surprised by your assumptions of words used, and mischaracterization of words not used when declaring constitutionality of concepts. To wit:

If a "peaceful assembly" turns peaceless [i.e. the rights of participants and bystanders [including owners of property, real or otherwise], or law enforcement become endangered] the exclusion of abridgment is null and void by the first action of peacelessness by the now peaceless assembly. Same condition as yelling "fire!" in a crowd wherein there is not fire.

Convenient, but baseless accusation. Evidence, pls.

No. The 2A confers the right to bear arms [weapons - not just guns, mind you. It does not specify just guns - that's a provocative progressivism, because my thumb can kill, and it is a borne arm that s not going to be banned anytime soon], but not to use them in ]illegal violence.

Have a care to understand the meaning of words you state, and to avoid assuming definitions that are not synonymous. Let's take a few words out of your extended commentary above:  reprisal, retribution, dominate, revenge. The first three are not useable in terms of physical force, as you clearly imply [thus "justifying" Trump is a bully.]  Justified, legal force, yes, but not physical. My OED says otherwise. Revenge, alone, a word Trump does not use, but you do,

Reprisal [n],  An act or instance of retaliation for any (alleged) loss or injury; (International Law) a measure, such as a boycott or embargo, taken by one state against another in retaliation for allegedly illegal or unjustified conduct. 

Retribution [n], Punishment for bad conduct, criminal actions, etc., typically considered in terms of redress or repaying a debt to society; the avenging of wrong deeds, etc.; vengeance; an instance of this.

Dominate:  [transitive],  To bear rule over, control, sway; to have a commanding influence on; to master.

Revenge [n], The action of hurting, harming, or otherwise obtaining satisfaction from someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at his or her hands; satisfaction obtained by repaying an injury or wrong.

So, what is wrong with reprisal, retribution, and domination within the law? Show me the statute declaring Trump wrong. It is in neither the Constitution nor the Declaration.

Yet, by your own words, you are lumping all four words together as if synonymous. Nope. You're better than that, but you have a blind spot relative to Trump. You're in good company; many have the same myopia. Words mean things, but they don't mean all things, as I have just shown. Same with elections. Get over it. Yes, Trump is belligerent. That's not illegal. Trump is proud. That's not illegal. Trump is in your face. That's not illegal. Trump is telling the world "America First." That's not illegal. The world laughs at Trump. So what? Who said they're right. Yes, Trump has, at times, praise his adversaries. Read Sun Tsu lately? It's not illegal, and it does not demonstrate that he agrees with everything they do. That's ridiculous.  It's politics. dirty game, and this example is part of it. I'll admit, I had a blind spot with Oba'a. I think he was as useless as tits on boar. Case in point: my reply to you does not mean we're adversaries, and it does not mean we are not. We have been in debate, and, given the right subject, will be again, but, we're also friends, meaning we can get along in spite of differences of opinion. That's civility. You trounced me on definition in debate. Fair enough. I'm returning the favor; that's all.

agreed. It appears all this is accomplished is my-culture-can-beat-up-your-culture. I don't think that's the purpose of culture.

thanks for the enlightenment. That explains why the list changes so frequently and why it does not distinguish a no vote condition. That, I would be happy to see changed re: policy, not necessarily the quality or hot list. I don't believe any debate should finish without at least one vote, even if voting period has expired.

no stand. not familiar with the case

Won't abuse the privilege, but good to know. Thanks.

right, and short stories, fiction novels, and poetry, but novel fiction also illustrated by yours truly.

Relative to K_Michael's post #7, mods take note: that was on his initiative. btw: the author's name is a pseudonym; fictitious. Now, the challenge is: what's up with the frog?

In the Debates section, one of the relatively new features is the "Quality Debates" and "Hot Debates" sections on the sidebar. I don't know if that is one person's input, or a committee decision, but I've noted two issues that bear reflection by somebody. They are pertinent to me because both issues involved debates in which I was/am engaged. One: should a "quality debate" earn a place on the list if it is still an active debate? Two: a completed debate was included on the "quality debate" section even though it garnered no votes and therefore ended in a tie.

Is it prudent to enter a debate still in debate on such a list? And, is it prudent to enter a debate on that list in which no one, including whatever persons listed "quality debates" for which they, themselves, did not vote? It is frustrating to both debaters to put effort into a debate which no one appreciates sufficiently to bother to vote. I have personally begun voting on debates in which I have no interest whatsoever because I recognize that they are, at least, of interest to two debaters, and I should appreciate their time and effort. In some cases [very few] I have acknowledged I will not vote because of some deep-seeded resentment or utter dislike of a subject, and my vote would be excessively biased as a result. However, as a general rule, I have decided it is part of my responsibility as an active member  to participate in voting as much as possible.

If a debate ends in a tie in which voting has made it so, so be it. I am currently in the voting phase with Blamonkey which is in a dead heat with 5 votes. If that is how it ends, so be it, at least there were votes. But to end a debate in a tie in which no one votes, that is a shame.

You might try reading Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property ..

No, just otherwise busy at the moment. Give me a day or so

One problem with citing the 1A as justification to turn peaceful protest into violence is the belief that the 1A is license to do whatever one can get away with doing without reprisal from law enforcement. Nope. We are free to protest in consideration of some events requiring permits [and we are responsible to know when that is necessary], and are free so long as our activity harms no one else, and as long as peaceful means we keep our hands to ourselves and to no one or nothing else.

We all have the right to be offended. That's an unwritten consequence of the 1A, but it is not license to suspend common sense, and our offense cannot replace the 1A with chaos. In particular, it is not license to censure.

And the problem with rampant multiculturalism is that we do not celebrate it; we denigrate it with bigoted zeal. We've learned nothing from the Tower of Babel.

Once again, you ignore the advice to not pick a verse and criticize it when it is pulled out of context. One verse does not make a case. Certainly, your own post is evidence of that, else you would make your case in one or two sentences. Since you don't, I ask how you justify a critique of one verse, typically of fewer than two sentences? I ask how you justify your claim that Christians do not want to "discuss the actual content of biblical scriptures themselves?" Neither do you, in context. Geese and ganders, my friend.

What permit was and has been required, if any, for these "spontaneous" , crowded protests, and have not been issued, and, therefore, may not equate to a 1A right to protest? Pure, simple, and honest question regarding your claim of 1A rights.

Since I cannot solicit business on this site, such as selling books, what it is and where to find it shall remain unfound. You'll have to find out by different means, PM included.  It, [and others] are available is all I'll say. By policy, that's as far as it goes.

You are on my page, except that I would qualify #1 [faith is a sixth sense] to the degree that the sensation itself is not faith, but the result of applying faith; acting on faith. Having faith is the ability, and desire, to discover truth, and the willingness to act with decisive desire to obtain it.

I'd say that your assessment of the SoM is a direct hit. If one were to condense the entirety of the SoM, even as a political platform, "humility" would be that one word. Meek, for example, is often aligned with weak, not only because they rhyme, but the perception of a meek person is often perceived as reserved, shy, and, well, weak. I think it is just the opposite. I think of Teddy Roosevelt's  quote of walking softly with a big stick. One is able to defend one's self without doubt, but would rather find any other solution to an issue than fighting over it. Our recent countrywide reaction to the death of George Floyd is a perfect example. Mayhem and destruction has far outweighed the perception of peaceful protest as a public response to the incident that should never have happened. Neither should the rioting.

I view the SoM as a slow, methodical progression of proper attitudes, beginning with the simple, and meant to be easy attitudes to acquire, gradually becoming more difficult to accomplish, but also more far reaching in effect. The first attitudes discussed are personal improvement efforts. They are for healing the self of anger, bitterness, disappointment, and sorrow. "Physician, heal thyself" might be a good description of these beginning attitudes. Fix the faults in each of us first, then extend the effort outward to be of help and service to others. It is more difficult to be effective serving others if we are still broken, ourselves. The trend of this passage from self-motivated actions of improvement to outward-motivated actions is a difficult path to remain upon because it fights our somewhat natural inclination to be self-centered. But a society filled with self-centered individuals will only achieve greatness to the extent of the weakest, most self-centered among us.

A careful read and pondering of this progression of self-improvement to improve society as a whole is deliberate and satisfying, overcoming the natural self to be self-centered. "It's all about me" is replaced with "it's all about you, or us, together." As we master each attitude, becoming better attuned to its effort, the more we each heal ourselves and one another until we reach, at the conclusion, the most difficult of attitudes: to love our enemies. That's actually an oxymoron, but it could only be said in that fashion to realize just how difficult, but ultimately healing to all of society. A loved enemy  is no longer an enemy. The real goal is to make of enemies friends, and not someone who is ignored. It's easy to ignore an enemy, and they remain such. But love engages. Love overcomes animosity. The enemy him or herself either reciprocate4s, in time, or doesn't, but either result should be faced with our same face, regardless. Unreciprocated love is hard to maintain, but that's the point. No one said it was easy to do. That's what makes the SoM so challenging, and, until it is sincerely tried, it cannot be panned as ineffective. Is there a better politick? No.

Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews offers one of the best definitions of faith I’ve ever encountered. Hebrews 11: 1 reads: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” [bolding for emphasis] The operative words describing faith are the bolded substance and evidence, both of which are common words we understand with little pondering: substance and evidence are the very properties we seek in law, and science. In other words, faith is demonstrated as a physically demonstrated thing, whereas mere belief, as I earlier said, can be anything we can imagine, but that does not have such substance or evidence of being so. By this, we can consider that faith is operable only in things which have substance and evidence. In other words, though we may believe the sun orbits the earth, as it is apparent to our common senses [sight, in particular], we now know this is not so. Faith expressed in such a phenomenon proved to be faulty. True faith would have revealed the truth of the matter; that the earth orbits the sun; that the universe is not geocentric as was believed for millennia. Witness what was done to Galileo for no other reason than proving beyond faith, but by perfect knowledge by both mathematic calculation and observance through his telescope that, although the science of the day [17thcentury] said the universe was geocentric, Galileo observed Jupiter’s moons orbiting Jupiter, not earth. The Church put Galileo in house arrest for the duration of his life for his heresy; heresy that proved to be true.
 
Faith can only be operable with things that are first true, even if currently unknown by empiric knowledge, which depends on our five senses. It is evidence of things unseen, or not felt, or smelled, etc. Truth exists even when not demonstrated by empiric evidence. Truth outside of empiric evidence can be proved by faith.
 
I consider faith as a sixth sense, much as animals which also share our five senses, have a sixth, or more, such as echo location, or sense of earth’s magnetic field. By the perception of faith – that warmth that grows from the core and permeates the entire body, and gives joy as a byproduct and is akin to the feeling of touch on our exterior, but is, instead, an interior feeling - is palpable, but only by the one experiencing it, although it can be shared by others if they, too, are attuned to the Holy Spirit that is its source.
 
The nature of faith is that it must be sought, it takes work in study and prayer, it requires dedication to the task, and confidence in its realization. It is by faith that we plant a seed of desired knowledge. We study, cultivate, nourish, and feel it grow. We continue in that mode, with sincere hope, that we will, at a time that may not be of our choosing, but will occur if we act on our faith, feeling the growth of the seed within us until it blossoms and bears fruit, and we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit that we have discovered a truth not had before. It will not be achieved by coercion, nor by doubt, or cynicism. It will be accompanied by the feeling of the joy of discovery. By such means, we can seek to understand the scriptures, but, more than that, the same experiment of our faith can reveal the truth of all things.

Since 1 will take a bit, and I'm pressed for time right now, I'll just give you 2 for the time being.

Yes, the warmth I feel - which is accompanied by a sense of pure joy, and forgot to mention - flows from my faith. I use "faith" in this vernacular as a sense, like sight or hearing or touch [you know the traditional five], not as the religion to which I align. In my response to #1, I'll explore the senses reference as it relates to faith.

By the way, I appreciate your attitude, and the concept. Thanks

You have this fixation of people running from you. Hint: It's not your deodorant.

Brother D is a troubled soul. He might heal properly if that pounding hand were pocketed for a while. It accomplishes nothing but pounding the Bible he espouses as the only true christian. Lower case for a purpose.

To proclaim that only by hearing the Gospel of JesusChrist will anyone have the opportunity to embrace it fully, is, on the surface, exclusionary to far more than half of all people who have ever, or will ever live on earth, and have or will have never heard the name, Jesus Christ, let alone anything about his Gospel. Who, indeed, will teach these people, ignorant through no fault of the their own. The answer is sublime and simple. Those who have lived a full life on earth and died without knowledge of Christ and his Gospel will hear it and have opportunity to accept or reject it when they are dead in body, but their spirit maintains life in another realm, just as the living have that opportunity. However, even some now living will die in that condition of ignorance. They, too, will have the opportunity as spirits of the dead. And even those living now, and in the past and future who do hear of Christ and his Gospel, and reject it now, in mortal life, will hear it again as sprits of the dead, and will either accept or reject it then. This is so that every child of God having lived on earth, regardless of when or under what conditions shall hear and accept or reject with full accounting of the knowledge of it. It is the ultimate plan of free agency that one have the opportunity to be an agent to decide for themselves. This will take a monumental effort. Those who die in Christ will be teachers of these ignorant or delaying spirits. The effort was initiated by Christ, himself, when his spirit was among the dead while his physical body was in the tomb.

Where is all this documented? Read the entirety of Romans, stem to stern, with the idea in mind that those brought to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be living, or dead. There is no distinction. And how are these then baptized, since that is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Read I Corinthians 15 - the whole chapter. You will notice I do not challenge much with single verses. I prefer context. How else is there full understanding?

I like the voting policy as is with the exception of Spelling and Grammar. The occasional typo is going to happen; none of us are perfect typists. I certainly am not.  And grammar violation is only rarely serious sufficient to raise the point at all. I would like this category of voting to be changed to general presentation of arguments. If by S&G errors, the general point being made is still comprehended by the average reader, I'd say it's not worth making a deduction of points. This is the process I try to maintain anyway. Yes, there have been exceptions when although I thought I understood the point, the language was either grossly negligent, or profane [I have no patience with added colorful references of the seven deadlies of broadcasting, which have less purpose in writing]. As I've previous said, remarking your suggestion of awarding"Kudos," I think that would be a proper addition to Presentation.

I'll engage here, as well

name: fauxlaw

political affiliation: conservative, but, more specifically, sermonist [explained below]

motive to engage: to be understood

prime societal aim: To abide by the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7 of the Holy Bible, inclusive]. To me, this passage is not only good religious philosophy, it happens to be the premier political platform in existence. Every precept expresses social, secular excellence to the degree that if practiced in full, we would have a perfectly harmonious society with every single social ill plaguing current society eliminated. As such, I call myself politically, as noted above, a sermonist because I believe this code of ethics applies to everyone. Even atheists could embrace this philosophy because it can be practiced entirely secularly. For example, the result of being a peacemaker is given to be "children of God." This, to an atheist, could be altered to: "children of pure liberty" because that would be the result of peacemaking. 

Sure, I'll engage:

Name: fauxlaw

Religion: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Motive: To be understood and to express

Nature of God: Real, personal, absolute expression of good

You have entirely mis-read Roderick. His "Star Trek" adventure, as you erroneously refer to his proposition, is unmanned. How is that Star Trek, an entirely manned mission? Therefore, your biblical limitations have not been violated, nobody is speaking to, about, or because of Jesus, and your pounding fist can go back into its pocket. Just calm down, sit down, and read properly.

Number one you have understood completelty.

Two, however, isn't quite on the mark, but only by way of the communication method employed by God to me. I do not her His voice as I would my earth parents, or anybody else. He could, of course, speak vocally as He has in the past, but He seldom speaks vocally to the typical, ordinary person, and seldom did. I believe in living prophets just as were on earth anciently. The communication to me, however, is more subtle, and is expressed in direct relation to the degree of faith and humility I express to God.

Faith is an entirely complicated process that would require a section of this interview all on its own, and I hope you'll give me that opportunity. Let me just say for now, as a teaser, that, to me, belief and faith are entirely separate elements of acquisition of spiritual knowledge. I put is this way: belief puts no demands on me to act. I can believe whatever I want, but have n obligation to act on it, or even to attempt to prove it. Faith, on the other hand, demands that I act on a matter I take on faith, such as the existence of God. I am compelled to act beyond the simplicity of belief. Because God exists, according to my faith in Him, I ought to b e obedient to Him in all respects that I can so act. M<Y faith in His integroty toward me is that by my obedience to him in all times and places, and not just when it is convenient for me, because acting in a contrary fashion if it is inconvenient just means I am unwilling to be obedient no matter what.It is faith the drives me to reject such invariability on my part. When I have desired to know a proper path to take, and I prepare what I consider are possible actions to take, I choose among the choices on choice I believe wold be His mind and will for me to do, and I have chosen correctly, I perceive a warm, gently burn at my heart that quickly swells and expands throughout my entire being. It is a sixth sense that tells me I've made a proper choice, and that I will be aided in its achievement if I remain faithful and obedient. If I don't follow through, I am denied the blessing of achieving my desire. Mere belief has no power to do this to me.

That I recognize a higher embodied intelligence who is called "Father," "God," and I also apreciate the moniker, "Holy Man," i.e., the most holiest Man in my existence, but recognizing that He recognizes still another "Father," etc, to whom He owes deference, is as logical a construct as my recognition of an earthly ancestry whose foremost example is my father and mother, the parents of my physical body, just as I referred to a Heavenly Father - and I have a Heavenly Mother, as well. Further, I recognize that just as God [a title, not a name] is the Father of my spirit, I am the father of children, and now grandchildren, and the descendants will continue through generations to come, ad infinitum. This generational concept of linkage to divinity is completely and wholly logical to me as both an eternal past, and an eternal future destiny.

To describe how this is known to me is as natural as learning and experiencing at my father's knee, watching him, and trying to do likewise, him teaching me, me teaching my children and grandchildren. When I pray to my Father in Heaven, I am speaking directly to a personage in whose likeness I am. I am at His knee, and He gives liberally when I asm most humble and desirous of that knowledge. It is because I have been given knowledge of Him that I seek Him for further knowledge. Quite simply, I know Him. I know He knows me. I speak to Him as naturally as I can speak to my children, and my father. We're family; all of us. 

I observe that some gravitate to your description choices of "higher intelligence" and single out "God," as if that is your only reference, and proceed to denounce it, or claim it is the only Intelligence that matters. There are some here who are irrationally fixated on that particular version of "higher intelligence," as if no other beings in the universe are capable of expressing intelligence higher than our own; those intelligence bogits [I misspell on purpose] in particular.

To your point, yes, such a barrier is indicative of high intelligence; high enough to know that natural law can be applied for a purpose, and I don't care if one calls that God, or James T. Kirk, or Romulan cloaking,  or the Empire, or the Force.

That's Lagrange, not Langrange. And all that's needed to escape  the hold of a langrange point [there are five Lagrange points involved in any two-body oribtal system such as earth-sun, or earth-moon, or jupiter-europa, etc], all located in the orbital plane of the two bodies. So, our unmanned spacecraft is programmed to avoid the orbital plane of your two bodies, and/or is programmed to meet or exceed the escape velocity required to overcome the Lagrange point. Problem solved. Exploration continues, whether or not Lagrange points were designed or are natural phenomena. However, one might consider that even natural phenomena obey laws that dictate properties of those phenomena and that a higher intelligence, semantics notwithstanding what it is called, is behind it, or even that higher intelligence is, itself, obedient to higher laws.

The key to your multiple ancestry description, with which I do not disagree, is your statement "they [chickens] can no longer reliably reproduce," implying that at one time, they could, but both have evolved in separate paths rendering them now incompatible, which in no way disagrees with my premise that, at one time, they shared similar traits.

Artificial? Law enforcement, by definition, is holding such to a higher standard than the average citizen. As soon as Floyd was declaring his inability to breathe, that should have been signal to the other three that an inappropriate level of force was being applied and they shold have stepped in to arrest the violation of Floyd's due process rights. They know that by training. They also know, by training, that the force being applied by their fellow officer was beyond the necessary force. Floyd was already handcuffed. What's he still doing on hte street, under a knee, when he shold have been placed in the back seat f the cruiser rather than at its rear wheel? 

100% by your scale; off the chart by mine. 

As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become. We are all spirit children of God. He is our Heavenly Father. He once went through a mortal experience, obtaining a physical body which we now have, learning, growing, and progressing toward an existence He now enjoys. He, as a mortal, went through the experiences we now have. He is further along a path that we now experience. Being ahead of us in progression, we will never be His equal because He, too, still progresses. He is still in a pattern of learning and experiencing life, but in a glorified state that we can also attain by obedience and endurance of joy and sorrow, and all other opposing forces which we are bound to experience in life. Birth was the beginning of our physical experience, and death is just another passage into a brief, spiritual existence from which we, as did God, will ultimately resurrect, fusing our spirit and physical bodies together into a permanent, glorified body that will then exist, learn, grow, and progress on an eternal path of further light and knowledge, potentially becoming Gods ourselves, to start the cycle over again, which has cycled for unknown eons of eternal generations, past and future. Knowledge, and the practical application of that knowledge, i.e., wisdom, is an eternal progression in which we are now in process of acquisition, and it will always be so because there is no end to knowledge, which functions by law, and which laws are necessary to follow in order to achieve our greatest potential. The further we progress on the path of acquiring knowledge, and using it wisely by following the laws that dictate that progression, the further we progress on that path, just as God is still progressing now, and always will.

Which I rebutted in my #5 and #8.

Consider it this way: humans are expressed in a variety of physical traits. We are a marvelously varied breed that all comprise Homo sapiens, but all of us are Homo sapiens, derived, so we are told, from a single pair of parents whose visible expression was not the varied expressions. Just so, chickens are in the mix of expressions comprised in junglefowl. Therefore, chickens have always been, even if not expressed physically. That's what natural selection is all about.

But, again, to what purpose? If one wants a 3-round debate, make it a 3-round debate, and not 4 with a waived round. That's absurd. That's a game, not a debate. Too many gamers here. As in: I couldn't care less about mafia, etc.

Was Darwin hardline? "...into one form, or into many..." Sounds like he was open to immediate differentiation. To what degree; who knows?

yes, very interested