n8nrgim

one time gray parrot has said that he collects welfare, but i dont know if he was joking. i know he's said people who make minimum wage 7.25 an hour or whatever it is, should just budget better if they are struggling financially. 

equal in dignity, not in equal in everything. men are stronger, and i might think have a higher range of intelligence (more genius and retard men than women etc), and have different instincts and reactions, sexually and in relationships. men are more rational women are more emotional. men and women have different biology. 

trolls gone troll

Gandi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. Jesus said to turn the cheek instead of getting revenge. Christians believe Jesus had the right to defend himself before his death, but chose to offer himself as a sacrifice, and in the process he defeated sin and death.

ya, dat rite...  TALK 2 DA HAND, FACE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND

i agree that most people are zombies to culture and political party. we shouldn't know what a person believes, without even talking to them, by simply looking at common party platforms. there's too many independent ideas, as you said, on each list.

with that said, as ive said before... you spend way too much time trying to find consistency in beliefs and then attack anyone who doesn't follow your views. there's all kinds of ways to differientiate beliefs. someone can be against abortion cause it's a human but believe in big government which isn't party line, others may be for it cause they think the localest decision is the woman, even if they prefer local governing decisions in generl and aren't liberal. there's just so many ways to view the world and you try too much to make everything black and white. 

you spend so much time creating hard and fast beliefs, or truths. i dont think you're convincing others that much, but you are developing your world view, which has merit to that. i am different than you in beliefs... i stick to general principle on most things, and understand that reasonable people can differ on details, even me sometimes when being i'm wishy washy. 

i agree that we should try to use their pronouns and such. but with that said, i've known trans people and when it become a real life practical thing, it can be super hard to keep their pronouns straight. they usually dont even mind if you sincerely are trying. 

back when i was a kid, a pussy and breasts made ya a woman and a dick and balls made ya a man. and i'd say that's generally still the case. 

it's also related to how the gold standard is such a bad idea. no gold standard and printing money causes the economy to be stimulated. if people get scared to spen money, at least the fundamentals are such that things are moving, being stimulated. recessions are more common and last longer when we have gold or no printing as our standard. maybe inflation protected securities should be more common and pushed, for the types that save a lot and dont invest otherwise... cause the only bad thing about inflation is that it erodes the spending power of savers who dont invest. 

it's a way of saying "i dont care what society thinks of expressing it this way... i really want to stress this point, so i will use this profane word" 

i think non profane words can emphasize a point, but sometimes a point can't be emphasized the right way without profanity. yes profanity isn't necesary, but if your proclivities allow for it, it's a unique way of getting a point across. 

you do realize that what you are doing is exactly how conspiracy theorists operate, even when they are wildly wrong, right? they find a random source that no one's ever heard of, then claim it's credible, and wont even consider that it's not credible, even when it's not. 

your argument is pathetic. 

To be able to really stress a point

I always propose proportionalism in response to those who say the ends can never justify the means even in difficult situations like this

that's not how it works. you can't credibly find a random source that may or may not be credible on the internet and claim it as proof of something. the burden is you, the one making the claim, to establish that you have a credible source. if what you say is true, it should be easy to find a credible source, that most people would acknowledge as a credible source. 

it's actually laughable that you think what you posted passes as a real argument. i think you are rationalizing and lacking critical thinking skills here. 

I know I said u should read from the nihilists, and I still think that. But it'd be more empowering for u to read from the existentialists. Both theist and non theist existentialists 

what denomination of christian are you? 

i dunno if that's a reliable source. a common problem from trumpsters are that they follow conspiracy theories with sources that arent credible or that we have no reason to think is credible. i'm the opening poster... im open to the idea that the election was rigged. but i need evidence from credible sources. 

it would be wise if you said trump is unfit, but you will vote for him as he is your only choice for practical purposes. that would be plausibly rational. instead, as always, you deflect and focus on things that are irrelevant. 

so if one of the entagangled electrons changes charge or postiion, that doesn't cause the other one to change? so they can be entangled at great distances, but we basically wont necessarily know for how long they're actually entangled, because what happens to one doesn't automatically happen to the other? 

if i'm understanding you right. 

if a corresponding change happened to the other even if just instantaneous and no further... itd at least be possible to use multiple entangled particles to send information to the other side. but it looks like you are saying we can't know when entanglemnt is broken on the opposite side of when one side changing. 

.....

women fuck around until 30 then have high standards for the next five to ten years, or shit happens and it takes longer. these women miss out on having biological children and lose out on finding a decent mate when pickings are best, when they are younger. yes, studies show single women are the happiest of all demographics, but many of these single women wanted a decent husband and children, and never got them, and end up rationalizing about their situation or settling in life. all those things i mentioned in my last post, definitely hurt women. 

it definitely takes a concerted effort to overcome one's own biases and to sift through propaganda in our news. some people are very skilled at defending a tribe, but its often only through a partisan lens. 

college expectations for youth, has harmed women

hook up culture, has harmed women

social media, has harmed women

internet dating, has harmed women

women are just pawns in this downfall of society.  most of the time they aren't aware of the forces at play. women get harmed, and men become the collateral damaged victims too 

are you a conservative? i dont know enough of your posts, but you look like a super smart/intellectual conservative, which to my prejudices isn't very common. 

who is worse... a hardcore libertarian, or a MAGA politician? 

well i dont have a break down of how often the governors did it illegally, and i dont have a break down beyond govenors of when it was legal v illegal. it's my impression that the governmors breaking the law was common enough to change the election. i could be wrong. i think there's at least enough doubt here to at least say the election might have been rigged. truth often lies in uncertainty and needs investigated to be established. 

i also think the fact this sort of thing isn't talked about more, is evidence the media is bias. i mean, i take it as a given, that there's a liberal bias in the media, which to me is fair given i think there's a liberal bias to reality... but sometimes the truth isn't conveyed properly in the media due to unfair bias. 

you around the forum? im curious what your take is 

it happened a lot in many states. in order to get a mail in vote thing, by law the citizen was suppose to request it. but, due to covid, many governors sent out those mail in vote things, to everyone or a lot of people. they technically broke the law by doing this. if that hadn't been done, given the election was already so close anyway in a lotta states, i'd surmise that the election would have changed for trump. another part of that logic, was it was mostly liberals who voted by mail. 

the most i've seen as far as a fair counter to this, was the republicans should have challenged this in court, and that that was their legal recourse whether they did or didn't. that's true... but the fact remains that many enough govenors probably broke the law enough, to change the outcome of the election. in short, the election was rigged. 

i ain't a trumpanzee either, and most of trumpanzee ideas are baseless conspiracy theories... but these facts are accurate, and they are what they are. 

sounds like u can't catch a break in life, eh? 

thanks for the quantum mechanics 101 lesson. i thought i already knew the basics, but apparently not 

Does religion include social convention too? I don't see poor atheists murdering the rich... tho I suspect many of them r more religious than they r self aware of

see my last post to double 

so how would you address the science? thermodynamics as far as we know, requires something of lower entropy to produce something of higher entropy. this is a firm rule, as far as we know. the only science that i see skeptics use, is the fact that empty space has quanta. sure, that's true, but the glaring hole in this argument is that space and particles are all a part of space... therefore it doesn't necessarily follow that we can extrapolate to the beginning of the universe like that. we have a firm rule being violated for those who think something caused the universe, and an illogical proposition from skeptics. all you are doing, is reverting to philosophy when confronted with the science.... but like i said, it's possible philsophy can have no bearing on reality, like math sometimes. 

I know some folks say good faith, or honesty in lay men's terms, is what the legal standard already is for him. But some people debate it.

But just in terms of justice, would it be fair to find him guilty if he was lying about his reasons to overturn the election, and let him go if his reasons for trying were honest?

I think there's a certain justice there, tho it looks like he knew he was lying, sometimes, while other times he had no grasp of reality and probably believed his own bullshit 

If the charge of the particle changes, wouldn't the charge on the other end also change? Can't that phenomenon be manipulated? If it even works that way

It looks like u r into software, r u a developer? How r u so conversant on quanta phenomenon? Is it job or hobby related?

I think there's reasonably clear proof of God, but atheists deny all terms and conditions so they hold on at best to plausible deniability. 

You should philosophize on the after life more. There's a growing number of atheists who believe in the afterlife but most of the time they r completely idiotic/irrational

Every developed country has a social safety net. Only undeveloped countries don't. The real question is to focus on how much of a net is best. The USA spends about what other developed countries spends, if private Healthcare is included in USA. USA has less of a social net cause we spend twice as much on Healthcare and our military is bigger than the next biggest counties combined

It's possible to use math in a way that has no real world application. It's the same with logic and philosophy. U have good points logically but u spend too much time ignoring the science. Like my last post says I think theists have a stronger argument scientifically and that is what should inform our philosophy. I realize saying I don't know is superior, but given u r taking a skeptic position to something causing the universe, you have no choice but to engage scientifically... otherwise u have empty logic and rhetoric 

The whole point of entanglement is that what happens to one particle, also happens to the other, no matter how far away, at the same time. So isn't your description inaccurate? 

I don't know if entanglement can be manipulated beyond a single peice of info, movement, tho, and it seems that that would be the issue

To be fair to these guys, those r trumps personal attributes. Not that I think his policy and presidential attributes r much better

Can the absence of something produce something? We don't enough info to think the nothing that we know of, with quanta, can produce the universe, but we thermodynamics still must be accounted for to explain how our universe came to be. We have a firm issue with my quibble and only speculation scientifically and philosophically with the atheist quibbke

i dont know that question is relevant to this debate, but i suspect as do most scientists that there's life out there in the distant universe, if not in our own solar system. that's the conventional wisdom, actually. as a theist, suspect something must be special about life theologically for it to be as rare as it looks... but this is just me musing as a theist. 

i used to say it doesn't make sense for there to be nothing and then an infinite something, like we currently see. how can something be infinite in one direction and not the other, and how can that play out such that it happens to be our reality when it seems like it should have run its course by now? but the thing is, if 'uncaused causes' are possible, then maybe the universe is an uncaused cause, and all my quibbles are what uncaused causes look like. 

you are good at getting deep philosophically... but in simple terms, why is it so unreasonable to think something other than the universe, caused the universe? i know you dont like the idea because it's outside of what we can objectively know based on what we currently accept as reality, but i guess my question is, dont you think a reasonable person can think something other than the universe caused the universe? 

also another thing we've all been circling around, there's 'accepting' something as objective truth, and there's accepting something as a running hypothesis, and there's aceepting something as debateably the best hypothesis.

"If it is the best answer then accepting any other answer is not logically justifiable."

a few things wrong with that idea. one is that you yourself seem pretty keen on not sticking to it... you are clearly defending the atheist view point. also, if someone has a hypothesis and not the truth established... it's fair and actually good to argue back and forth about the hypothesis, for what you suspect the truth is. 

there's 'nothing' and then there's 'nothing'. in the vaccum of space, there is a lot of nothing to the layman, but scientists know there's quanta out there. but what exists outside the universe? what everyone is circling around, is that some say that's a non sense question, but others point out that at least philosophically, maybe it isn't. you point out only the nothing of what we know of can produce something... but can the nothing of what we dont know produce something? 

that looks like a great series. too bad our streaming system is so convoluted that we can't easily watch these things. i have netflix, and roku, maybe prime is cheap for month to month streaming.

that's fair enough, i dont know, and possibly the best answer, but i think it's fair to have an opinion and then defend it.