fauxlaw

Mon Dieu! la Polynésie française! Je suis jaloux! Je viens de la califiornie du sud, mais j'ai vécu en Provence pendant trois ans à la fin des années soixante. Bonjour, mon ami.

My episteme was noted: bacterial genome aging. You really want to argue vocabulary? In which language? I'm fluent in five, one of them ancient Egyptian.

Ma gavte la nata. figure that one out, then why don't you overcome your fears and enter something in profile. of what are you afraid to remain so unknown?

Of French, and Scot ancestry, but that quote is not French; it's a northern Italian dialect. It means, roughly, "be so kind as to remove the cork." It's best known use, other than common in villages east of Turin, is from Umberto Eco's novel, Foucault's Pendulum.

By the way, have you googled "wikipedia," the source you cite for your entire argument? I quote directly from Wiki “Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source,” -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Then the above is a baseless charge. Either gather the data, or ma gavte la nata.

Perhaps you, Jack, are losing votes just due to your inability to reference anything. Within the body of your post, one should be able to:

1. Know of whom you speak. "He" doesn't cut it.

2. Which debate? Which one among the currently 1,089 debates is the one needing to put the shyte to bed? I'll wager many of them require that. If your debate style is as non-specific as your post, I don't doubt you are losing votes.

Oh, ye of little faith. You think we are limited to books to prove what is known of history; in particular about the Black plague? In my republic, we can count on other sources than just books. As far as books go, yes, we are limited by their dependable scholarship, as in your republic. Sorry about yours. In my republic, it is possible to date the bacterium that caused the Black Plague because it still exists today, and their genome can be measured by date of origin. If the target item cannot be measured [using equipment that is capable to 10x the scale of specification, and is calibrated to required standards], then the claim of truth is inaccurate. Therefore, because it can be measured, the statement of measurement capability is true.

Try to keep up.

Care to check my citation stats?

Yes. Nowhere in the links is it said that every worker-owned company also practices income equality. They do mention that employees can buy stock. Is each employee purchasing an equal number of shares? Do you want to prove that?

I disagree. Truth cannot be defined by simply what is known to be true. We did not know, for example, when the Black Plague hit in the 14th century that a simple regimen of proper hygiene would have, by itself, mitigated the spread of the plague [although it is not, in itself, the cure], yet it would have been as true then as it is today.

Truth is eternal. Untruth is eternal. Meanwhile, humans discover truth that has always been. We, ourselves, do not create what is true; we discover what is true out of the unknown. Once known, truth does not change its character; it is immutable. It is our responsibility to hold it sacred. If we try to change it, that s its corruption; we make it profane by attempt at manipulation, such as limiting God by telling Him He is not God because He allows suffering. Maybe when we, ourselves, discover that most suffering is on our hands, not His, we will also discover why suffering occurs at all.

What does the structural design of a nautilus have to do with the distance between your eyes compared to the horizontal length of your eyes?  And what does that have to do with many other features of the human face? And what has that to do with the numbers of petals observed in flowers? And that to do with spiral galaxies? With the spiraling pattern in fruits, vegetables, and trees? With shells? With hurricanes?  And what has any of that to do with any fractals? Mathematics, my friend, is the language of God because it is the only perfect language [Fra Luca Bartolomeo de Pacioli, the grerat friend of Leonardo da Vinci, and author of Divina proportione, 1498], and that language fills the universe in its elegant design by use of the divina proportione, known also as the golden ratio; 1:1.618, which just happens to also describe the number series known as the Fibonacci sequence: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8.... a pattern of a consistent sequence of numbers, advancing by the golden ratio, and it is evident from sub-atomic particles to galaxies. That is not possible by random selection of a design scheme. By the way, the Greek word, 𝜆𝜊𝛾𝜊𝜎 [logos] which we often translate to "word," also happens to translate to "ratio."

One should not need to have Scientific American prove the Bible any more than one should need the Bible to prove Scientific American. Do we ask Geology to prove Etymology? Or Astronomy to prove Sociology? Do we even ask Entymology to prove Cuisine? Do we ask Origin of the Species to prove Gone With the Wind? Self-evidence is the key. If it can do it, fine. If not, do not look for a silk purse to be stuffed in a sow's ear.

Truth is eternal. What was true yesterday is still true today and will be true forever after. What is not true yesterday is not true today, and will never be true in the future. The difference is whether we are aware of the truth, or not. It is our discovery of what is true that changes by our increased knowledge of it, or not. We did not just discover that a water molecule was made up of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, and suddenly it was so. It always had that construct, and we just discovered it was so. So it is with all truth.

As if the archangels have nothing whatsoever to do than be linked to some outpost planets, individually, no less, on the far edge of the galaxy. Who says they are? And what are their credentials. You know I'm a stickler for citation. So,,, cite. However, it is known that the Basque, a significantly different culture than either the French or Spanish, have no such Mercury legend. I've been there, lived there, and know them.

Why would the numerous writers of biblical scrolls need to have quoted the scientific process of anything, let alone just Moses describing the creation. Genesis is a description of creation from a geocentric perspective, which is one perspective, but we know it to be flawed by thinking we, on the outpost of earth, are ubiquitously central, So, God did positively not give a scientific expose to Moses. No, the science was far less urgent to be known than was that the creation happened at all. God was teaching the why, not the how.

Let's recall [or conclude, if one has never read the Bible, and I mean the entire volume, page by page - I imagine that includes most of us, but I've read it in four languages cover to cover - that the construct of creation is told from a geocentric position, which is hardly reality. However, this is not because the whole matter is a fiction; it's because God, telling Moses how it went down, was not teaching an astronomy lesson. Those who are LDS out there, the Book of Abraham [from the Pearl of Great Price - for the benefit of others not familiar with the added scriptures we embrace, that book, the PGP, is the added writings of Abraham, and Moses. Anyway, God is not teaching either Moses or Abraham an astronomy lesson. For their purposes of understanding, because it was what they could observe in the night sky, the creation is described as geocentric in nature because the astronomy was not as important as their understanding why the creation was effected, and not necessarily an accurate how.

The real question isn't either Biden or Bernie, even if either them convince the Party that they deserve the nomination. Once the DNC holds in convention in Milwaukee, the party won't much care who has what delegate count. It will be either a brokered convention similar to 1952 when Estes Kefauver had the primaries sewn up, but the Party hated the idea of a Kefauver presidency. They nominated Adlai Stevenson, the then current UN Ambassador, who did not even seek the job and ran no primary campaign. He, of course, lost to Eisenhower. This looks like the exact same scenario. It's either brokered, or Bernie's, or more likely Biden's VP choice will be brokered, not a candidate choice. After all, neither candidate is likely to survive a full, single term, either by incapacity health-wise, by by action of the 25A, so the VP is a critical factor for which the Party will assume control.

That's the best use of lol I've ever seen! I usually consider that anytime anyone uses lol it's used as meaning "frightened little girl" because people who use it followed, or preceded by just about anything leaves me with that impression.

lolcow is truly funny.

Do you think or know if it has any etymological reference to a French cheese company, la Vache Qui Rit [marketed here [US, and I suppose in GB] as "The Laughing Cow? 

Nope. Even in worker-owned companies, people are paid according to their their skill-set, longevity, and responsibility, and possibly by more factors. Bernie hasn't quite got his meathooks into us that deep. plus, not every employee has an equal ownership stake in the company. It is still a free-market economy, after all.

In a free-market system, of course there will be income inequality for the reasons I've already given you: people do not apply an equal element of ambition, let alone equal elements of planning and execution. Hell, some people lack the understanding of their own paystubs, and further lack the confidence, or have an abundance of stupidity, to ask. If you want equality of income, which will never reach the level that can be achieve by the free market, then Bernie is your man. Go suck up to his campaign. Tell you what, after having been acquainted to union mentality as an automotive engineer, when I got out of that racket and into management, I taught my employees how to calculate their individual worth and contribution to the bottom line, then turned them on to justifying by hard numbers why they deserved an increase in pay. With their facts and figures presented to finance, I had no problem justifying their increase, because it would increase the bottom line. Who needed a union to negotiate for them? They could do their own negotiation and make it stick. That's what one can do in a free market, even just an ordinary worker earning an hourly wage. Can you do it?

Wrong, my friend. I contribute 20% of my income to charitable work, plus I take an active role in it by volunteerism. Don't judge me by your perceived paradigms; I don't fit the mold.

What guarantees are you looking for from the government? You are guaranteed a right to exercise your wallet to do more than work for money and stuff it in your piehole. Put it to work for you. Yes, there's corruption galore, but are you compelled to join it? I'm not. Yes, there will always be needy so long as there are people who refuse tyo exercise their ambition. When it comes to the disabled, I draw the line. I do not expect of them the ability to act on their ambition as I can. There but for the grace of God. I help there by cash and volunteerism, too.

But I have no patience for a capable freeloader. None.

Tell you what, bud. The plan I just laid out to you has worked for me for 50 years. My father taught it to me, and, although he was not as ambitious as me, he made it work for him, but I inherited only $10,000 from him, and I had already started working my plan 20 years before he died. I had reasonable success, but my investments took off by adding most of my inheritance to the diversified pot. From there, from that $10G, I created a hjigh 7-figure nest egg in the next 15 years. Since Trump, that has allowed me to increase it by 54%, and I haven't taken a dime from anybody. That they have chosen not to participate is, as your perceptions, entirely on them.

You? Does it work? Shyte, does it work!

What you perceive is entirely on you. I cannot climb into your head and tell you what to see, or what you see, hear, smell, etc. No, I'm not joking. Tell me, who compels you to put whatever into your piehole? And what compels you to believe the American free-market capitalist system is designed to extract wealth? You don't get it at all, and worse, believe the junk you've had stuffed into your hearholes by alleged teachers. Quick lesson of the free-market: 1. There is no ceiling for the money supply, in spite of what Oba'a said. He's an idiot in this regard. 2. You are given three free benefits at birth: a. ambition, b. ability to plan, c. ability to execute the plan, and d. [because there really is no ceiling for money supply] review what you've learned, and either what you've gained or lost, and repeat with step a, because you get more than three strikes, and certainly more than one. 3. Put your money to work for you; don't accept just working for it and don't use it just to stuff your piehole. These benefits, however, are not entitlements. You don't get to do nothing and expect money to roll in. YOU MUST PARTICIPATE. Clear enough? By the way as to the Oba'a reference: He said, "There comes a time when you have earned enough money." BULLSHYTE!!! Not when there's no ceiling to the money supply. And why, do you think Democrats can only see far enough to increase minimum wage? That's a lowbrow, bare-minimum goal, and it was never, ever meant to sustain a family of four; it was for one individual, and nobody has changed the law. Read its origin, The Fair Labor Act of 1938. But, that's Democrats for you. They will not tell you to do that.

How is it splitting hairs, exactly, when, as I've demonstrated, even by example, that your claim of present tense is really future tense, whereas the qualification for future tense is not present tense? Confused? That's on you.

Thank you, Dr. HistoryBuff, for your brilliant, TV flyby diagnosis of a mental condition. Your credibility precedes you, which is why we see you coming from a mile away. Over my 7,500-foot elevation.

Ah! All forgiven

"Since Trump’s election, the S&P 500 Index SPY, -4.50% has produced a 42% total return, including dividends. After adjusting for inflation, that works out to a compound “real return” of more than 11% a year." [as of Aug 19, 2017] according to https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-truth-about-the-stock-market-that-never-trumpers-cant-accept-2019-08-08.

"The historic average since the 1920s: Just over 6%. Yep. So far, the “Trump” stock market has produced returns nearly double the historic average." - from same source as above

The recession of 1937-1938 caused a market decrease of 1-18.2% [The Great Depression was -26.7%]

The recession of  1945 caused a market decline of -12.7%, both greater than now, and both according to Smiley, W. Gene (1997). "Depression of 1937–1938". Business Cycles and Depressions: An Encyclopedia. in Glasner & Cooley 1997, pp. 154–55

Please try to research before posting what you hear from pundits, who usually only do the little work you have done. It may take an extra 15 minutes of your time, but it's better than approaching Mark Twain's definition of a fool. Look it up.

Go for it, Cookie.

Description must be accurate, not a generalized syntax, or that description is worthless. Tell me how helpful it is in a court of law to have the prosecution ask a prosecution witness, a recognized scholar in investment strategy, if we are currently experiencing a recession? The witness first replies that, "...according to..." and cites the source I have given to DrSpy in my post #16.  In this hypothetical trial, the plaintiff sued his broker because plaintiffs investments have declined. The charge against defendant is that the broker did not have a contingency plan to protect plaintiff's investments, when, in fact, there is no recession according to the expert witness that would require a contingency plan. Defendant argues that it is upon the plaintiff to request a contingency, fearing the potential future of a recession or depression, when such conditions are not yet in evidence.

Do you see how essential it is to avoid generalities? It's sloppy language and that is all it is.

"A common rule of thumb for recessions is two quarters of negative GDP growth. A depression is a prolonged period of economic recession marked by a significant decline in income and employment. There is no widely accepted definition of depressions." -https://study.com/academy/lesson/recession-vs-depression-definitions-and-differentiation.html

We are nowhere near the qualification threshold of a recession according to the above, not to mention a depression, and note that it relates to GDP, not to DJIA. Therefore, a recession is not qualified until and unless both Q1 and Q2 of 2020 are no-growth quarters, which we will not know until July, earliest. As for depression, since there is no "acceptable definition," it cannot yet be a topic of conversation as if it was upon us. It is acknowledged that a depression is worse than a recession; therefore, it has more severe qualifications, as noted. 

Distinction is in the eye of the beholder. "Ague for you limitations; they're yours." - Richard Bach

Yes, and I have also seen Oba'a without a TOTUS, so let's not parse presidents in that regard. Few Presidents have the gift of extemporaneous oratory. Does that detract from their ability to get the job done? Not in my experience. Hint: even Lincoln had a script for Gettysburg, but then, he wrote it, too.

Since it is April Fools’ Day, I will celebrate by offering a revised challenge of “if” and load it into the Forum. This topic varies slightly from my first loaded debate after joining the site, and will, hopefully, deter argumentative definition of words as a feature of the Forum commentary, although, iunder this format as opposed to the debate, I suppose it’s open season. Never the less, I will address my own definitions for clarification.
 
The full language of the forum topic is: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
 
Definitions:
Utilitarian: Useful by intentional-purpose activity. Frequency of use is not a factor, even when used frequently. A thing may be used frequently, or not, without meeting the intentional-purpose qualification. For example, using a flathead screwdriver as a wedge to pry one object from another, such as a lid from a bottle, may be useful, but that is not the intended use of a flathead screwdriver. Therefore, in the context of the debate, “if” is a word that introduces a non-utilitarian value that cannot attain value until the condition of the “not true” changes to “true.” It is the conditional statement of an if/then proposal that must change; not the definition of ‘if’ and/or ‘utilitarian.’
 
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity. 
 
Acknowledgement: Recognition of a condition that is currently either true or not true. The ‘if’ statement is the qualifier of a true/not-true condition, but is not the vehicle to change one condition to the other.
 
Argument:
In the debate I challenged on this subject, and lost, the loss was completely negotiated by my then opponent by obfuscation: to wit,challenging a word I did not define, “useless.” I thought it unnecessary, even though I subsequently advised my meaning of its use as being utilitarian in scope and not in frequency of use. However, since my opponent was first to apply a definition, that’s the definition that stuck, and I was unable to convince otherwise.
 
My opponent [Oromagi, my friend] further obfuscated the argument by multiple definitions of ‘if,’ which I had not seen necessary to define. I still don’t.
 
In the debate on this subject, Con argued eight separate definitions of ‘if;’ mostly in scientific use related to proposing a theory. In science, ‘theory’ holds a very respected position relative to fact v. fiction, or truth v. non-truth. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is still considered theoretical, and not a true fact, when compared to later theories, such as String Theory. The Theory of Relativity is a virtual fact by comparison.
 
Given this acceptable confusion in scientific circles, I submit that playing a shell game with ‘theory,’ essentially violates my proposed if/then statement regarding the use of ‘if’ since, in practical terms, ‘theory’ cannot logically reside on both sides of a true/false condition, even if science will bend the logic. I declare it out of bounds for definitional consideration, as I’ve proposed in definitions. bHowever, since this is not a debate frmate, and no pints are at risk, it's open season! Have at it.
 
Further, I argue that when something is currently not true [accepting that this condition could change, but is still bound by the current condition] there is no ‘if’ statement that can successfully alter the condition of ‘not true’ by itself; that is, without external manipulation.
 
I will offer an example; one that I mentioned in the debate on this subject: Star Trek’s Kobayashi Maru; the Star Fleet Academy’s no-win tactical challenge.[1] If you recall, cadet James T. Kirk successfully passed the challenge, but he changed the conditions of the challenge in order to pass a no-win scenario. Rewarded for his creativity, instead of being chastised for changing the rules, Kirk won the admiration of Star Fleet. Or, so goes the story.
 
The deal is, Kirk applied external manipulation to change the ‘not true’ condition of the challenge, which was designed to be an unchangeable ‘not true’ condition. The purpose of the challenge was to conceive the most original, creative response to a no-win scenario. Star Fleet Academy’s issue was that they did not conceive that a cadet would manipulate the test parameters to defeat a no-win scenario. To do so in a logical question is to violate the purpose of the question, thus the change to a matter of utility, as defined, and not mere use, which has unintended baggage.
 
Moreover, I contend that acknowledgement, by definition above, has no ability to change the conditional statement any more than the ‘if’ statement is able to accomplish it. For example, to say, “If I could fly, I would be in Paris tomorrow.” The ‘if’ statement automatically recognizes an incapacity; ‘I’ cannot fly; I am not equipped to do so due to the limitations my body possesses. I can resolve the problem with external manipulation of the ‘if’ statement, but that upsets the paradigm. And, as I am not currently in Paris, it does not matter that my conditional statement is one of a positive attitude; it is still not true. I can ‘if’ until cows return to the barn, but I cannot, of my own facility, change my ‘if’ current condition; I cannot fly. Who knows; with evolution and adaptation on my side, and my longevity increases exponentially, one day, I may have wings, but that is not the current condition. Therefore, the entire phrase is a logical falsehood. Currently.
 
I suggest a read of understanding philosopher Hans Vaihinger [1852 – 1933], whose philosophy of Die Philosophie des Als Ob, [The Philosophy of As-Ifs] supports my contention that 'if' acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Vaihinger argued , “…all knowledge [episteme] is empirical in the sense that our guiding cognitive aim is the prediction and control of empirical phenomena, not correspondence to objective reality.”[2] This is the reason for defining ‘theory’ as I have, and why, therefore, bending its application as science is wont to do to somehow include “fact” as one of its functions. 
 
Finally, as Vaihinger expressed, our desire is to predict and control empiricism, and resulting episteme, but it can do so only within the bounds of what is epistemic; what is known as curently true.
 
So, the challenge is offered: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.” Or, one might say, using Vaihigner’s Philosophy of As-If, ‘If’ is not utilitarian because it acknowledges what is currently not true, and does not correspond to objective reality. April Fools!
 
 
 

What guarantees beyond what you have are necessary to fulfill any desire to be prosperous? Like I said, with the system you have, you can be as prosperous as you want to merely provide what you need, but to also provide what you want. It's a simple formula by applying your own ambition to your own planning and execution to achieve it. Like I said; if that guy in the mirror tells you that you cannot do it without some added guarantee [I had no such in addition to what's already there], then you cannot do it, period. As Yoda said, "Do, or do not. There is no try." So, if it's not working for you, change that guy in the mirror. Am I getting personal responsibility through, here?

True, it's not an acceptable argument if yours is that you're entitled. But that's on you.

You're welcome for the lecture, burt you styill don't get it. I paid for my college education, 2 PhDs. Well, actually, not to brag, but I had scholarships because I applied myself in high school. I wasn't after a "job." I knew what I wanted to do, planned how to do it, and executed. I have money today because of it. Complain all you want about the inequality of income. That's on each individual for their lack of ambition. period.

By the way, I do not engage closed debates [that is, designating an opponent] because there is no allowance for commentary preceding the debate in a closed debate format. In open format, commentary is allowed. I often use that feature to discuss definitions, etc. so they are agreed upon before the debate begins, and avoids using valuable argument space to debate argument and rebuttal. That is a flaw the moderators acknowledge, but the site owner appears indifferent to doing something about it. 

I am merely suggesting your source for the statement highlighted is flawed, because it does not agree with a credible source and we do not need incredible statements made to explain what is going on with the alleged climate debacle. It speaks of discrediting what science there is. No statement such as that ought to be made without a credible source to back it. You know better than that, so don't hurl your "friendly forum" to me. Friendly, it should be, but it should also be of some level of scholarship. After all, it is not a supporting argument for a science that alleges to be "in."

Have we? Do we know what the acceptable level of CO2 in the atmosphere is? According to NASA Earth Observatory,

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle we are at the highest level of atmospheric CO2 in 2M years, and the highest atmospheric methane in 650K years. Both ranges of these GHGs are much less than the short carbon cycle [100 - 230M years], and much higher than the fast carbon cycle [>100 years]. And 85% of atmospheric C02, according to the same source, is absorbed by the oceans. And, by the same source, well before 2M years, placental mammals with systems identical to ours evolved 140M years ago. They saw, and survived one short carbon cycle, and 140M years of long cycles, and survived their higher concentrations of both GHG gasses by Darwin's wonderful evolution theory known as.... adaptation. Are we less likely to adapt than our placental ancestors? What, with our tech? Try again, my friend. At least I have a valid source for my side. Yours? Your sock puppet?

Yes, and in the 50's, King Hubbard said we had reserves to last another 20 years. Granted, the scale of measurement changes, but what has also changed is the ability to make more valid guesses, but, in the end, that is the status of "reserves;" a guess.

Another guess. Wouldn't bet the farm on it, though.

Yes, I went through it. I thought at the time, and, given the years since to contemplate, I hold with my original deduction that the crisis was manufactured. We had, then, no idea the volume of our reserves in the ground, and King Hubbard was obviously way off base. It was, after all, just a money grab by the Arab Oil Embargo and not a true lack of reserves. We could have been number 1 in oil production, and, therefore, energy independent then, not just now. We just did not have the vision for it, and that's entirely on us.

And while you acknowledge our capability, by tech, to improve out estimation, I also believe that out tech growth will, in time, relieve our current reliance on petroleum in discover of other energy-producing media.

Just who needs the proof, anyway? Don't I count? Find your own, or don't. It's always been up to you.

And since that carbon has already been renewing for a billion years, at least, does it matter the length of time that renewal occupies. We'll never catch up, at least not in the time new technology will replace petroleum as a fuel, as a lubricant, and a source of plastic fabrication?

Do you, then ignore, or even deny that a person can have more senses than the oft-referred 5 senses? What if one of those senses is the proof of God sufficient for one to declare it? If someone hits me up the back of the head with a mallet, and I cry out in pain, am I to assume it did not happen just because I did not happen to see it? Am I to assume that if God massages my heart, and I cry out in utter joy, that it did not happen because I did not see it?

Show me, show me, show me. Show, yourself. You know no one is going to prove anything to you, so why ask? There's a certain Madman in the streets, holding a lantern, inquiring, "I seek God" as if God would show Himself to such.  One finds God in the subtle, quiet places, in a leaf, turning. Turning both bright colors, and dying, pulling against the tree in a wind to be free. In a river, cold and silent at its depth. In a sunrise, glorious and quiet, peaceful to the bone. And even on a street crner, but the lantern is only to see one's self. God is seen in the heart.

The kairos moment you describe, and I agreer with you that it is a possible moment to experience, can happen whether alone, or in a crowd. I know precisely of what you speak. Try this, and see if it does not describe your experience: 

"And when ye shall receive these things [whatever you may be seriously pondering, looking for answers], I would export you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true, and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, having real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye shall know the truth of all things."

This is a formula, as dependable as math, to use whenever there is doubt, and desire to know, By following each step in the formula, faithfully, and in faith, each and every step, the desire for knowledge of a thing will be given. Doesn't matter of you are looking for the truth of the Gospel, or an answer to a physics question, or how to boil water, or cook a gourmet dinner. God desires that we obtain a knowledge of the truth, and has given us the formula, and the experience of the revelation is a kairos moment. You're on the right track. Keep asking.

So, where do you go to find a "settle-down" woman? To the lowest of all low common denominators? [the net?] That makes as much sense as finding a needle in a needle-sized stack of pins, let alone a haystack. Covid-19, aside [this, too shall pass] you find what you look for where like-minded individuals gather. No, not a bar, either. Look for the gold standard where gold congregates. Personally, I found my bride of 47 years in college, by first befriending a guy who attended a fondue party I hosted, and shared many common interests. We happened to meet up in the college cafeteria the next afternoon, and were then joined by his girlfriend and her roommate. I was immediately smitten by his girlfriend. My friend had to go to class, but I was still free and so were the girls. I bided my time until the roommate had to go, and I ask my friend's girlfriend for a date. The rest is history as we found more common ground than with my new friend. All's fair, they say, and we've never looked back.

"Argue for your limitations; they're yours." - Richard Bach

That is an argument for expelling self-imposed limitations. Taking an active role in learning is always available. Read something about which you currently know nothing. Why do you insist it is not available?

I've conceived a different approach:

OED defines "proof:  I. Senses relating to the establishment or demonstration of truth or validity