You have ignored what I have also said, and you seem to ignore it:
We cannot choose the definition of words unless it can be demonstrated that a new definition applies.
Nothing was ignored. It was already explained to you that definition of each word is a choice. If your brain cant process that simple truism, I dont know what to tell you.
Definitions arent demonstrated. they are made up.
They planned all that but didn't bother to make the ear injury look more genuine
they just needed to make it look real enough so that enough people will believe it. Of course, its impossible to make fake injury look 100% real. If it looked like 100% real, it would be real.
I am not woke.
tho I am trans gender trans age taoist anarcho fascist.
Based on what specific information
Anyone who has ever worked as a translator knows that in order to translate something to english, you first must know what specific relevant word in English means.
this is common knowledge.
So because definition of word "female" and "woman" is a choice, your translation is incorrect for anyone who chooses differently.
I know this is all confusing for you. After all, its a whole new concept which your work in translation doesnt succeed in covering.
Only smart people like the Big Bang theory. I have never seen anyone who is low IQ ever enjoy it.
Sheldon's mother is an example of high IQ Christian. You don't see those often.
We have Star Channel in Bosnia. That's where I usually find The Big Bang theory. There is also RTL 2, however, they are not really showing it regularly.
Do you ever watch The Big Bang Theory on TV? The actor who plays Sheldon Cooper is my brother.
I think I watched all episodes of The Big Bang Theory and Two and a half men.
The big bang theory is probably best if one wants comedy while also hearing some advanced things. Tho I am surprised Penny fits into the group. I mean, she is the only one in whole group who is there all the time without any education to actually understand what they talk about.
After reading on Project MkUltra and other projects of mind control, a lot of things which would seem like coincidence become a pattern.
Project MkUltra talks of a small bullet or pill which causes a politician to speak nonsense and become incoherent. This happened to Biden.
It also talks of creating alters, people who will do as they are told and who have alter personality.
Guy who tried to kill Trump could have easily been an alter. If he was alter, then he would not care about dying there because alters only obey orders.
He would not even care to die in a fake assassination attempt.
And the biggest thing about Trump assassination attempt is, how the hell did shooter miss?
Someone who really wants Trump dead would likewise practice shooting before shooting attempt itself.
However, this guy fired multiple bullets and somehow missed them all.
There is a possibility of strong wind causing problems for shooting on far distance, it's a common problem for snipers.
Still, anyone who practices shooting had to be aware of wind impacting bullet trajectory.
Also, shooter made a beginner's mistake by aiming for head.
In virtually any shooting training, any shooting manual, you will find that aiming at head is not recommended ever. They always teach aiming at chest. Even targets at target practice have their red circle to shoot at located on chest.
So the shooter was either someone who never had any training on shooting or never went to practice shooting ever, or he was an alter.
There is no 3rd option.
And another question is, how did security not spot him?
I mean, he was on the roof. Many people saw him before he even started shooting.
Security should have easily spotted him, yet they somehow only spotted him when he started shooting.
So there is a man on the roof holding a sniper rifle, and somehow none of members of security who were trained for spotting exactly that, none spotted him, even tho civilians in area spotted him before shooting.
It all seems like an organized show rather than an actual assassination attempt.
There are too many things which happened which cannot be explained all to happen at once:
1. Shooter misses multiple times
2. Security service doesn't spot him despite that he was on roof for a long time
3. Civilians spotted him and told security service, who didn't react immediately to stop him
4. Shooter came entirely uneducated on how shooting with sniper even works
5. Trump only gets injured in an ear, which if they were staging a fake shooting, would actually be best place to get fake injury because it's much more difficult to fake getting shot by bullet. This way, he had wound on his heart, but no bullet in his body. Wound on his ear could have come from anything, even a cut. It is much better for fake assassination stage than for example getting shot in body, because that would require actual bullet to be in his body. Wound at ear required no bullet.
I always thought that black people should get reparations. Even after slavery ended, they were pretty much pushed in poor areas and under bad circumstances.
For this, I recommend reading two short books:
Native Son
and
Black Boy
They are both by Richard Wright. They are probably one of most amazing books I ever read on systematic racism.
As for Muslims paying reparations for 9/11, well, surely USA must first pay reparations to Vietnam and about 70 other countries it invaded in past 70 years.
"Practice brainlessness"...Please elaborate.
I already told you, brainlessness means no thoughts. Person who doesn't think.
And dead people are non-practicing Taoists.
Taoism means nothingness. Wu means emptiness. Taoist is same in death as he is in life. No thoughts, mind empty.
Tao doesn't win. Tao doesn't even compete. But no one wins against Tao.
Democracy is the best system. Two wolves and sheep vote on what's for dinner. I wouldn't wanna be sheep.
The "words" say the DNA equivalent of "human female," or "human male" when speaking of humanity
this is likewise false. I am assuming you dont have experience as a translator.
It is not the purpose of one language to define words of other languages
Alright, so originally, you claimed that DNA defines english word woman, and now you are saying its not DNA's job to define english words. So glad you changed your mind!
For those not familiar with 36 stratagems, here they are:
36 stratagems are 36 Chinese strategies of war and politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems
Number 36 is: "When all else fails, run away".
Which stratagem should taoist prefer? I say taoist should prefer running away and hiding.
Why?
Because when someone walks into a fight, victory is not guaranteed. But when someone keeps avoiding all fights strategically, he cannot lose.
If you cant run away, then fight or use politics, but if you can run away, then run away.
Running away is best for those who have ability to avoid an enemy. As long as you avoid fights, no fights will be lost. thus, you remain undefeated.
I have never lost a game of golf because I avoid playing golf. Avoiding playing golf made me undefeated in it.
If you dont like taoist brainless monk form, maybe you would prefer taoist God Dragon form?
this will be title of my next weekly taoist. taoist God Dragon form - Everything happens according to taoist's will
If someone punched me in the face, most people would think: "thats bad, he experienced evil".
But quite the opposite. If I am punched in the face, I wanted to be punched. So it happened as I wanted it.
Everything happens as taoist wants, because taoist wants everything what happens. this is another form of taoism, of always being content with what you have and what is there.
If God sends me to hell, then I want to be in hell and God is merely doing what I want.
No God or demon can match such power.
If I get burned, how does it affect me? taoist monk doesnt think, so he doesnt think he got burned. He experienced no harm, because he has no concept of harm.
And what is this "good"? If it is something desirable, surely one who has no desire for it doesnt miss it.
So you think that person should think.
But person who doesnt think, cannot think that they should think, so their position is unshakeable.
Also, problems are defined by thoughts. No thoughts, no problems.
Yeah, thats a strawman on your part.
DNA is not written in English
So it cannot define any English word. Well, this was easy win.
taoist cannot lose anything, because he does not identify with anything.
If I dont want money, how can I lose money? I dont want it.
taoist is a true master of invincibility, because desire can always be unrealized and thus defeated. But taoist has no desires, so nothing is unrealized for him.
I follow:
I dont think, therefore I am not. I am nothingness.
Live without wanting.
Be without knowing.
Exist as empty
Flow as tao
the goal of taoist is to return to state of mind which is nothingness of tao. His mind is empty. His brain cannot be found. He has no thoughts, so no thoughts bother him.
Should one have desires merely for the sake of having desires? Should one desire to have desires?
No, it is much better to be without thoughts and desires. that way, whatever happens is not bad. Whatever person experiences is not evil. Such person cannot experience evil. Such person is tao master. Evil doesnt affect him.
that is only if law determines what is right.
I think the opposite. Only by stopping with thinking, person can have peace. Person who doesnt think, doesnt think about any problems. there are no troubling thoughts in that person's mind. His mind is at peace because he has no problems in life. It is thinking which creates problems. When you think "this is a problem", you have created a problem. But monk who doesnt think there are any problems, how can he think that problems exist?
Having power to do something doesnt make it right. Otherwise, all what is done would be right.
The assumption that the concept and the processes involved can somehow negate themselves to a point of nothingness, is somewhat silly.
They can. Dead people don't think. Likewise, people who practice brainlessness don't think either, so they don't think of anything as bad.
You're correct. Is-should [it's really is-ought, according to its originator, David Hume, and dubbed "Hume's guillotine"] is a fallacy by trying to conclude what ought to be from what is.
I am not talking about is ought gap by Hume, which talks about impossibility of deriving "should" from is, which depending on definition of should isn't necessarily true.
I am talking about you making irrelevant comment about what countries do today. What countries do today is not necessarily relevant to what should be done.
Saying that "this is the law" isn't saying "this should be the law". Saying "countries are like this today" isn't saying "countries should be like this today".
But you err because my reference is not what is, but what was, which clearly was a different set of conditions [no immigration statutes, then], whereas there are now.
Even if you are talking about what was (which isn't true, that reply was to "countries today"), same applies. If "is = should" is a fallacy, I don't see what makes you think "was = should" isn't.
Yes, so, change the law, if you can. But as long as the law is what it currently is
What law is, is irrelevant to what law should be. Saying that "this is true because it's the law" is really turning logic upside down. Something should be law if it's true. Something doesn't become true simply by being law.
I've repeated this post to you elsewhere because I expected such a response
I don't see why are you repeating what is unproved.
