zedvictor4

Bro wins the psychological battle.

And it's entertaining to watch.

Mr Faux, on the other hand is a cool customer.

It's interesting that such dilemma and taboo still exist in these enlightened times.

Says a lot about American society, and it's insular and conservative sub-societies.

If you don't want people deducing things, then limit what you give away on line.....Because once it's out there it's out there.

I just say things as I see them.

If you're really 32 years of age and show no interest in the opposite sex, then I expect that you family and friends already suspect.

Is your immediate society so oppressive?

Life is, plain and simple.... And you are a selective moralist.

Prove me wrong.

Who, where, what, when?

You need to elaborate a bit Doc.

Nonetheless, back in the day 90% of the flock wouldn't have had a clue...They would just have nodded and drooled in wonderment  at the clerical verbosity.....And then handed over their tithes.

In "relatively" more recent (educated) times,  clerical verbosity is not generally held in such high regard.....Other than by those philosophers and theologians who have nothing better to do.

Individuals or groups adopt pre-established words or phrases, to represent something other than the pre-established intention.

No one is white and no one is black..... People have varying skin tones.

But white has come to  represent (historical) European colonialist oppression..... Where skin tone actually varied considerable from swarthy to very pale.

Nonetheless, white has been adopted to represent the oppressor and black the oppressed.

But despite most of  "Western" society having moved on considerably since such times, there are still those who see value in continuing to drag their heels.

For paler skinned people the Term "white" can be just as demeaning, as "black" can be for darker skinned people.... It's just that, "white" is currently just not a worthy, PC trendy cause.

Though it is worth saying that the PC trendies are a minority (a loud minority nonetheless)......But fortunately the majority of decent, busy people don't have the time or the energy to worry about perpetuating historical, skin related antagonisms.

Nothing  that springs to mind.

The gender comment was aimed specifically at Bringerofrain.

Chopsticks are useful for all sorts of things.

But picking up food isn't one of them.

And there's a lot to be said for gender neutral.

So what would be your specific alternative to anti-racism?....Pro-equality doesn't have the same intention or meaning.

In fact, the PC standard for racism is "white" negative treatment of "black".......The standard for anti-racism therefore is anti "white", which is racist.

Pro-equality is pro-equality....Pro-equality is currently not PC......There's much more "white" bashing to be done, and compensation to be argued for yet.

Philosophers and theologians are, as philosophers and theologians do.....Very little of any use, in fact.

Typically, you paid attention to the bits that suited your argument and ignored the bits that didn't.

In short:

Sound is sound but not necessarily sound.

And valid is not necessarily synonymous with sound.

Such is the eccentricity and variability of the English language.

@RatMan

Ageing and barely fit for office......Just about sums things up.

Trump wasn't fit for office and Biden is clearly to old.

Surely there's a sensible, post-retirement candidate out there somewhere.

And why talk to a media who's only aim is to knock you down, as soon as you've been stood you up.

Gotta sell news somehow...And people just aren't interested in plain old facts....People want entertainment.

No, not quite.

Whiteness is a term adopted by anti-white people, to portray white people negatively.

Originally Black and White was a representation of an obvious difference.

And though the past is history, we move on slowly....Some people still like to drag their heels and demand that they are different.

Greek and American or British and Asian........Welsh and Scottish for goodness sake.

Homogenization is a slow process, dogged by culture and memories.

People who think that Dumbo is racist, are themselves racist.

Unfortunately, one can not be anti-racist without simultaneously being racist.

Another example of  two extremes.

Any sensible moderate person would enjoy and respect Dumbo for what it was meant to be...A light hearted children's story.

Though isn't it demeaning to anyone with big ears.

Earist bastards!

Yep, that sums up the ontological argument.

The ontological argument was aimed at an illiterate, uneducated, enslaved flock. Who once upon a time, were easily duped into believing that any bull**** that came out of the mouths of clergy, was divine.....Blah de blah de blah GOD....Oh and don't forget your tithe you scumbags.

Hopefully we've moved on since then.

There are always two extremes, Big Bro.

And you're advocating one of them.

 

An argument is a discourse one bases upon something that one assumes is conclusive.  Ergo, also assumed to be a sound argument.

Nonetheless:

Whether said argument is or can be proven to relate to a factual conclusion, is a separate issue.

So if said argument relates to something that is unprovable or unknowable, an existent God or an objective morality for example. Then all arguments are actually unsound, irrespective of what may or may not be conclusive.

In these circumstances any sincere argument is valid but not sound. Nonetheless that does not imply that an argument in itself is not reasonable, and in this respect sound.

Such is the variability of how we define and utilise the word "sound".....The inherent contradictions of the English language as it were.

@RatMan.

Caveman hierarchy (alpha male), just like other examples of species hierarchy, was all about who got to pass on their genes (who got the ladies)....Going to work every day is a hunter gathering  contrivance, and deep fear was a necessary caveperson  survival mechanism.

And OOOh I've just been sexually harassed is a derived kick in the balls....But nowadays, a much more powerful social weapon.

And if you are afraid of the facts (PC), and do not wish to discuss them, then ignore me.

Blocking is a nonsense, if you cannot ignore.

Media has it's own agenda.

Perhaps you should now consider defeatable, as a more appropriate screen name.

Well, the root of the word "anoint" is typically Latin.....Inungere...To smear with oil.

And QE2...What the heck.

Nonetheless: One event or two?

In my honest opinion....Chinese whispers relative to a possible event...More than likely the same possible event, variously interpreted.  The details lost,  misinterpreted or forgotten and reconstructed to suit....

And that's assuming that all characters mentioned, including Jesus, are based upon real people....

And to be fair, a lot of the basic bible information is probably loosely based upon real people, places and events.....The problem lies with inconsistent, latter-day interpretations  and associated supernatural embellishment introduced therein.

I think that in both cases, Trump and Biden, one must expect a certain reduction in acuity, relative to age.

Yes of course...Though your personal interpretation of the GOD principle, is itself  an internally generated concept, in response to acquired data.

God is what you create.

And you are the result of a GOD principle, whatever that might be.....Maybe it is the floaty about bloke with a beard. The one of Middle Eastern folklore you were perhaps encouraged to accept as a child....Or maybe not....We can but speculate.

As for "Anointing of Jesus"......Well, the biblical Jesus may have been based upon a real character, and anointing was an archaic practice similar to aromatherapy.

Spirituality is real, but wholly internal and self generated....That's is not to say that external stimuli do not affect or cause internal functions and responses.

Can't actually see the point of the above comment.

Other than a general jibe at those fellow  Americans you regard as your enemy.

A tad shallow perhaps for an erudite thinker, such as your self?

@Theweakeredge.

Time is indeed a dimension.... Depends how one chooses to define dimension.

Time is regarded as a dimension, alongside and relative to, the 3 dimensional possibilities of space and the presence of matter therein....Which affords matter the possibility of event with duration.

Any other hypothetical dimensions are just that, and do not impinge upon the basic realities and possibilities (facts) of Time and Space.

As presented.... True.

Spacetime fabric is a theoretical representation of the universal interaction of matter.

And what you suggest, may or may not be relatively correct.

@RatMan

Sexual harassment is a modernism, whereby sexual attraction is consider as inappropriate in certain circumstances..

Nonetheless, instinct is still the real norm, and being faithful to ones partner is an established but unrealistic social expectancy.  

The physiological truth is, that female sexuality, harasses males (or females depending on sexual preferences, lets be PC), that's the whole idea of display,  attraction and all those pheromones.

Alpha male + displaying female = basic, instinctive sensory overload.

Perhaps it really is best that women should be kept out of the workplace, and should stay at home, look after the children and cook the dinner...Only joking.

Or maybe it should be just as incumbent on women to keep their sexuality under wraps, and stop harassing alpha males.

@Theweakeredge.

Well, firstly use your dictionary and look up homophobia. And you will find that your contention and accusation, is wholly inappropriate and unwarranted.

Secondly, I know that I am correct concerning homonyms and the definition of Q, and also concerning Q's historical relationship to G....Enough said.

Also... L nor G nor B,  like P are not primarily about gender identity (if at all), but are obviously primarily about attraction relative to sexual desires.

Only T is primarily about psychological and physiological dilemmas regarding an individuals sexual identity.

I contend that LGB (T) (Q) etc.... Represents a PC movement, whose aims are a moral and legal justification of an individuals right to choose how they behave sexually, relative to attraction.

I would also contend therefore, that T is a wholly separate issue. Based upon the reasons I gave above.

Further.... Fundamentally P is no different to LGB....Attraction relative to sexual desires, where all protagonists have a gender identity established at birth.

The current  social and moral abhorrence of P is a separate issue altogether...And rightly so.

So finally, with regard to sex education...I would suggest that "school systems" should only include HLGB. 

T should be considered, but within a different subject area...And Q should be ditched altogether.

And you seemingly, still find it impossible to ignore me.

And also continue to ignore H.

Maybe you are heterophobic.

Such allegations are powerful weapons,  easily exploited by a drooling media and impossible to eradicate.

So, what then should we realistically expect from a highly motivated, heterosexual, alpha-male?...A vow of celibacy and plenty of bromide perhaps.

A biblical tale that is typically ambiguous and variously reinterpreted.  

But as foot washing and head oiling was a common pleasantry back in the day, it's probably best to not read to much into it.

And best either, not kiss lepers or miraculously cure them.

And also typically misogynistic of the day, having women scrabbling about on the floor pandering to men's requirements....Such were Jesus's expectations also, it seems.

For the sake of simplicity, we are mass.

And our mass when broken down into it's decreasingly smaller component parts, is still mass.

Though unless mass is  continuously infinitesimal, at some unobservable point  we will cease to exist.

Nonetheless:   I would suggest that to accommodate the concept of creation, it is therefore mathematically necessary, that the fractional reduction of matter cannot be infinite

It is perhaps that which cannot be observed that is key to everything.....Call it a GOD principle, if you will....But do not give it two arms, two legs and a beard.

Spacetime Fabric is a theoretical corruption of three words.....And only occurs as imagery on a computer screen....And as such makes representational sense.

In reality there is no such thing as Spacetime fabric....Just a Universe containing matter, seemingly bound by physical laws....Therefore, things occur as they do.

@Theweakeredge

Now who's trolling?...With their unfounded and crass allegations.

Nonetheless:

Type in Bark and you get Bark and Bark

Type in Queer and you only get Queer.

It was not me who introduced LBGTQ into the discussion forum....And initially  I only referred to P as possibly falling  within the Q category

Though if you were as old as me you would clearly remember that not that very long ago, G was also generally regarded as Q.

Pointing out facts and highlighting contradictions in PC ideology in the context of a discussion forum, does not make one a homophobe.

Your immaturity maybe something of a frustration, but I do not do spiteful.....Children do spiteful.

And I reiterate....If you do not wish to discuss with me, then ignore me...As the saying goes , ignorance is bliss.

For me the intangible possibilities of Space and Time are staggeringly uncomplicated.

Theoretical physicists like to complicate things.

EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS- HAS THE TIME AND THE SPACE TO DO SO.

IF THE INTANGIBLE POSSIBILITIES OF TIME AND SPACE WERE NOT AVILABLE- NOTHING COULD OCCUR.

Christianity is an evolved Middle Eastern religious thingy, relative to human demographics and the distribution and movements and development of information and ideas thereof.

Judaism is a similar alternate derivation of the same folklore.

As is Catholicism.

And the Christ/Jesus organisation, would undoubtedly have been seen as a threat to the Roman empirical establishment. 

As such and as ever, the threat to established power and wealth would have been of primary consideration. The Jesus movement would undoubtedly have been regarded as such a threat.

Cultus Dux...May well have been one accusation put forward.

Typically, you espouse this stuff as if you have actual, unequivocal proof.

Rather than just an interpretation of  ancient Middle Eastern hypothesising and folklore.

Wise Guy:   (Preaching boldly)  It was a bloke that I know what did it, and he f**ked a married virgin and she had a child and named it Jesus). So if you give me your money,  you can come into my house and sing some hymns and do a bit of kneeling and praying, and if you do this regularly, and are good and do what I say and keep giving me your money, I promise that you will go to heaven, when you die.

Poor Simple Guy:      Ok. (In a meek voice)

And so the Big Business that is popular religion was invented.

But where's your actual proof of an existent creator GOD?

Man sees the proof of creation and material evolution and cannot deny it.

But Man has never identified an existent creator....(Only ever created one in his own image).

"Spacetime" is a theoretical corruption of two words, and represents something completely different from the basic understanding of Space and Time.

If Bethany continues to annoy fellow passengers by throwing balls to Daniel. She is able to do so because the possibilities provided by Space and Time allow for the activity to be an event with duration. The ball would travel from B to D because there is Space to do so, and the event would not be instantaneous, because it would be subject to a measurable duration of Time.

B, D nor onlookers would consider an existent canvas like, but unpainted, theoretically existent canvas like thingy.

"The Moon is made of cheese".

Is simply an example of a controversial axiom, (Not in any way intended to be related to the motion of celestial bodies or balls) where the basis of the axiom would not necessarily be known fact, but a contrived misrepresentation of fact, such as the Sun revolves around the Earth.

It would appear to all concerned that Daniel and Bethany were playing catch on a train, and should sit down and stop making a nuisance of themselves....No one would consider the information in the way that you describe.

@Theweakeredge

Nope...Bark and Bark are two completely separate words...Homonyms as you correctly pointed out.

Whereas...Queer is a single word with various related definitions....Which you incorrectly referred to as homonymic.

And if you don't want to reply (considering that you've blocked me).....Then just ignore.

I merely state my case.

You choose to respond.

So I respond in response with a legitimate response.....This is not trolling.

#1000

The bottom line is.

Tarik has a subjective opinion regarding their personally derived concept of an objective morality....And Tarik expects that you should agree.

It's a futile discussion.

@Theweakeredge

Nope incorrect.

There is no relationship between your two examples of Bark so therefore they are homonymic, and as such are listed separately as two different words.

Whereas queer is a singly listed word, with two or more related definitions.

Please look at your dictionary when you read it.

If maintaining that the Sun Rotates around the Earth is not controversial, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then that sets quite a precedent with regard to what is or isn't axiomatic.

Nonetheless an axiom is not exclusively a philosophical premise, and so considering that we are discussing in a science forum rather than a philosophical forum, then in this context we are using a scientific axiom.

So from the point of view of an observer, the Sun may appear to revolve around the Earth. But nowadays as a statement of fact, this would be controversial and not axiomatic.

In this instance, the Earth is known to rotate and also revolve around the Sun, and so this is the scientifically established axiom.

Otherwise the Moon is made from cheese.

It would not be false to suggest that the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth.

Though as a statement of fact, it would be false to say that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth.

Within the above context the Motion of the Sun is "relative" to various observations....Though an observation doesn't necessarily imply actuality.

Nonetheless the axiomatic position, is that the Earth rotates, and also revolves around the Sun.

I don't think that axioms are meant to be as whimsical as you are  suggesting.

I like the reference to Kazimir Malevich.

I am Green Square with White Shapes.

And I don't mind a bit of fun poking.

That's why I miss Mr Ethan in the mornings.

Regards.

@Theweakeredge.

Nonetheless you were the OP, and I was the contention, concerning the inclusion of Q....Suggesting that P was Q and should therefore be discussed in an educational "system".

Your overly emotive pleas in response to the P word were not constructive in respect of this contention, as I wasn't challenging the social illegitimacy of P.

But the discussion progressed and I adequately responded to your pleas, with logical references to relevant contradictions in thinking...(See Athias above for a more conclusive report).

Finally with regard to the dictionary:

Queer.... Strange or odd...A Gay Man.

It is foolish to try and suggest that there is no intended connection between the two definitions. (Irrespective of modern political correctness.)

Therefore similarly,  and within an established social context P can also be regarded as Q...And should be included  (emotion aside) in "school systems".

Presumably, most or all P's once attended a "school system".

As ever, extremely well stated.

@ Theweakeredge....Read the above and weep.