Total posts: 13,834
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Permitting genocides etc.
Based on the assumption that primitive alien civilisations are likely to develop in exactly the same way as human civilisation.
Which is a fair assumption I suppose. Universal constants and all.
Though based on these simple criteria, it would also be fair to assume that other universal civilisations are unlikely to be any more or less developed than our own.
Nonetheless, meddling in other peoples affairs does seem to be a human par for the course.
So the Prime Directive would no doubt be interpreted to suit.
Beam me up Scotty.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You've obviously done both.
Yum Yum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Contradictions would either prove poor authorship or exemplify the disjointed nature of the bibles compilation.
That is to say, human fallibility.
Which to be fair was only to be expected in a relatively dissociate society.
Not, that by justifying contradiction one can validate content.
For me the bible is still mythology.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Deb.
It all boils down to internal data processing, rather than external reality.
In that sense all religions are the same and no different.
Sour pussy milk. Yuk!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yep.
But bathrooms have a specific purpose.
If people are intent on using such areas for purposes other than those intended, then there is very little that can be done to stop them. I can't see that multi-sex or single sex facilities is going to make any difference to this phenomenon.
Horny kids is horny kids and are going to copulate when and where opportunity permits. And let's be honest any lockable cubicle is going to be fair game irrespective of it's location.
And do kids in the U.S. actually perform abortions in public bathrooms?
Nonetheless. This preponderance with what kids might or might not get up to in bathrooms is all starting to get a tad seedy!
And not something that persons of our age need to be getting hung up about.
Regards.
Z.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The first day that I questioned a seemingly meaningless loop of words.
No offence but that's just how it is Buc.
Regards as ever.
Z.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Ok.
But isn't replacing one spiritual delusion with another, somewhat counter productive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Vader
@crossed
What do teen pregnancy and abortion have to do with defecation and urination in high school's?
Irrespective of gender assumptions, the basic requirement of toileting equipment is functionality.
Though whether or not all people wish to share the same toileting experience is more to do with their formative conditioning rather than with the functionality of bathroom equipment.
It's no good trying to force everyone to think that they are all the same. If you haven't firstly, taught everyone that the are all the same.
Though previous rhetoric seems to imply that although everyone is the same the are also different too.
So irrespective of gender assumption. It naturally, in the end all boils down to the same old, time worn, unavoidable penis vagina dichotomy
Created:
-->
@Mopac
All of this can perhaps be achieved.Purifying one's intentions etc......
But certainly not if a mind is clouded with religious delusion.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Taoism is a brain state, not reliant on unknown external influences..... Everything is.
Whereas deism is a brain state wholly reliant on an unknown external influence...... Everything is, because.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Aspirations is aspirations.
And relevant facts and truth are currently unattainable.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
It was you who suggested that there was a need for reconciliation.
My response was simply to suggest that religion and science are fundamentally the same. Just variations based on what is ultimately a single theme.
Conditioning, i.e. data input.
Conclusions, i.e. data output.
Conditioning results in clever religious scientists, as in just the same way conditioning also results in clever non-religious scientists.
Contradiction, is just arguing the toss over the finer points of conclusion. All of which will be continuously and instantaneously uploaded, assimilated, stored and possibly utilised at a later date.
Stored data is all essentially the same and therefore not contradictory.
Differences of opinion are simply variations in output, relative to conditioning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Change for the sake of it perhaps.
What would be the real benefits of changing the current format?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It happened 5 minutes ago.
Are you sure that the problem is now resolved?
Created:
Posted in:
Posting to forums is now often met with any error message.
Choices: Rewrite or don't bother.
Most annoying.
Suggestions please.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Conditioning is.
Therefore religion is, irrespective of assumed belief.
And science is the appreciation of alternative data.
Nonetheless:
Religion is as religion does.
And science is as science does.
Therefore, there is the contradiction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Terran
Prophecy is.
And, notwithstanding a physiological breaking down of databases. Mind change is fickly modified data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Only meaningless looping of words hoping they will actually mean something to others.
Perhaps we share the same aspirations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Could do.
But depends on universal potential.
And one could also suggest the possibility of an external influence.
Though I still like the idea of an oscillating sequence.
Whereby limited potential negates infinity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Remote bravado is no measure of actual individual capability, because human beings are fickle and not necessarily honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's a very simple appreciation of universal possibilities.
Taking into account the potential of the universe as we view it.
Universe being occupied space not necessarily limited by space, ergo not closed.
Ergo finite potential, infinite space.
Ergo universe is shaped only by it's potential.
No boundaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Expansion or extent and therefore shape is relative to either infinite or finite potential.
Infinite or finite is also obviously relative to infinite or finite potential.
Common sense would suggest that potential is finite.
Ergo no ego.
I would also suggest that it is unlikely that humanity will be around to witness the extent of universal potential.
Also, finite universal potential is not necessarily suggestive of closed. As the limits of possibility may well exceed the limits of universal potential.
In fact the limits of possibility may well be infinite, ergo unlimited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Meaning, Order, information and materialism are all acquired and stored data.
How an individual unit might choose to process and output new data sequences might or might not be self refuting.
I suppose, that to a large extent it depends on the accuracy of the original data.
Though philosophically, the output is quite likely intended to be hypothetical anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps in the form of some sort of universe ending doomsday device.
If the universe is destined to end at some point anyway. Then maybe "The Device" is what enables the re-initiation of the universal sequence.
Genesis rather than doomsday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Yep. Had a look and not convinced.
A great deal of current, assumption based hypothesis.
And if an assumption requires credibility, then create a programme that provides credibility.
If the assumption is incorrect though, everything that follows is likely to be incorrect also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Seriously.
Are you implying that conscious brain function is not "biological in nature"?
I'm well aware of all the sociological fluff.
It's the base reality of human function and how it might be interpreted within a zealous society, that is the concern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The God you were taught to accept, that you think you know.
And prayers you were taught to utter.
Just as Evagrius was taught to utter.
And other people were taught differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I would suggest that the purpose is ongoing.
Call it material evolution if you like.
We are already an intrinsic part of that, so searching is unnecessary.
But the ultimate purpose is greater than the process, so life eventually at some point, might also become unnecessary.
Life and consequently intelligent life is perhaps, just a means to one end, whilst at the same time being a part of the means to an ultimate end and a new beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The meaning of life would be it's purpose, relative to a context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
"Broadly defined". Theologies were naivety of understanding, and were inclusive of cosmology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We may well eventually become surplus to requirements.
And we will have been the architects of our own downfall.
Though that is probably how things were meant to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Are you implying that conscious brain function is not "biological in nature"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
So give me a reasonable explanation of flat and a reasonable explanation of flat and lumpy, in the context of a universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You're getting into semantics now.
When is a conscious decision to terminate a pregnancy not a reaction?
When is a bodies sub conscious reaction, and subsequent rejection of a foetus not a decision?
Both decisions and/or reactions are nothing more than physiological capabilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
I have the same consistency as a theist.
And I am able to communicate verbally.
Created:
Posted in:
Adolph Hitler and his cronies for example.When someone with enough power can change the rules.
And stopped a tad too late. much to the detriment of approximately 80million people.
And how might I be a moral anti-realist? I don't understand the concept, so please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The body decides in either case, either consciously or sub consciously
And intent and reason are equally applicable, either conscious or sub-conscious.
And in both cases the intention is clearly not to carry the pregnancy to full term.
So when is normal physiological function not normal physiological function? That is to ask, is thought not innate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
At what point does a law cease to be reasonable?
Once upon a time Adolph Hitler thought his laws were reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Ok:
So the host can neither consciously nor subconsciously prevent normal birth. Therefore how can this be regarded as rejection. (dismissed as inadequate, unacceptable or faulty).
And though one can obviously proffer various social scenarios whereby the living offspring is latterly rejected. This obviously is not the same.
Whereas if we apply definition to both miscarriage and abortion this clearly is rejection. (Dismissed as inadequate, unacceptable or faulty)
So:
Although not really applicable to the issue, answer me this.
How can we adequately define "wedlock as being either normal or abnormal?
And how does "wedlock" directly relate to an individuals physiological function?
Pregnancy is not dependant on "wedlock".
Hopefully you're not going to start stoning unmarried women!.... But hey there are plenty of zealots around.
This has conceptual implications well beyond the issue of base physiological function. Though that is not to say that concept doesn't greatly influence social function, Social function (legislative power) being one of the primary concerns relating to the opening question.
A third party is separate to the host. Therefore this is interference and not rejection, which may or may not be relative to the individuals choice to reject.
Ultimately it is the host individual that chooses to reject, irrespective of third parties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Miscarriage is the rejection of a foetus by the host.
As is abortion.
One is an unconscious decision. One is a conscious decision.
The real question that applies is in terms of legislative decision making.
When will miscarriage no longer be regarded as separable from abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Well you explained birth. "Normal". (Not withstanding other postnatal possibilities). And obviously there are no extreme contentions regarding "Normal".
And the intent or actions of third parties are irrelevant to the question.
And so I explained miscarriage and abortion. "Rejection"
The relevance is the intent of the host, whether it be a conscious decision or an unconscious decision.
In both instances the outcome will be the same. "Janet" will physiologically reject the foetus.
In both instances both decisions will have resulted from the natural physiological processes of the mass, that is "Janet".
It's an a honest debateable point which is open to honest debate. So it would clearly be far to soon to be dropping one's mic.
And furthermore. I read Janet and John books 50 years ago at infant school.
So let's mature up the debate a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ok. So "flat" is very non specific.
But 2D is Very specific.
And from a layman's perspective, rather than that of a theoretical physicist, 2D is the point at which nothing exists.
And I think that it is fair to say that Jacob Bekenstein, though undoubtedly clever has not actually found anything. But only made highly imaginative assumptions.
And layperson's will tell you what they imagine or assume to be real. And the weight of opinion is currently on the side of the laypeople.
Four circular hexagonal planes of spherical cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron
This is one of your typical statements, that to the layman appears to be so contradictory as to not even be ambiguous. So can you give me a more coherent explanation?
And similarly how are closed and saddle suggestive of a torus?
And I freely admit that your final statement in it's current format is well and truly beyond my grasp. Ergo no ego.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Voldemort and God may or may not be comparable. That is the ensuing argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything is real to some degree or real within it's own context.
The concept is real enough within the context of a database.
Which is what the story was and what the story became.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
A flat universe with dimension is a contradiction in terms.
True flatness is an impossibility.
There is either nothing or something.
And closed and saddle are suggestive of external influence or pressure or even boundary.
Created:
Posted in:
Though the methodology might be different.
Even if it is based upon a conscious decision rather than a sub-conscious decision, the intent of the host mass is still based within the same physiology.
That is to say, in both instances the foetus is intentionally rejected by the host.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our finite universe
Yes this is definitely logical.
Though there is obviously no observation of something that can only be assumed.
And I also find it difficult to apply tangency to such a concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
@Lucy
A debate is more often than not based on a difference of opinion.
Therefore it must be expected that a challenger will refute your argument and vice versa.
Freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression are paramount for both sides of the argument.
And the chamber will continue to echo, despite the liberal media's attempts to stifle alternative opinion.
Created: