SatanLucy

According to the OED:

n. An adult female human being

Where is this written in DNA?

And how do you know it's a definition of woman if woman isn't mentioned?

No sovereign country in the world today allows foreigners to enter completely unannounced and without some form of identity document or notification

Irrelevant is-should fallacy.

In 1625, MA was not a sovereign country, but, England did have laws to prevent destitute newcomers to colonies even then. My ancestor was not destitute, but came with sufficient funds to build and operate an iron foundry. Therefore, he was accepted as an immigrant, not an illegal migrant.

Illegal and legal migrant are only different in a way of what law determines is a legal migrant.

So one needs only to change the law to allow more migrants in, legally.

A past-eternal universe bypasses the need for a first cause, therefore, a starting premise is unnecessary

Not really. The premise that universe exists and is even eternal is just more of unproved. The chain of infinite unproved premises is still unproved.

You forget that I have had a sentient conversation with James Watson in 1966

Oh yeah, the good old times.

Yes, DNA defines exactly what a human woman is.

How do you define the word "woman" without mentioning the word "woman"?

DNA does not use any spoken/written language of the type typical of human use

So no definitions of "woman" anywhere in it.

This is not done by breaking that new society's law by stepping across the border without proper or legal behavior [checking in with a border agent].

So just allow people to come in legally, and they won't have to break the law by coming in. Making a law to prevent a migrant from coming in, is no different from opposing migrants coming in. If someone made a law that your ancestors can't come to USA legally, then you would be descendant of illegal migrations instead.

A good chunk of them took land from each other. With how much they were moving around I'd say most living natives had migration somewhere in their past/ancestry by the time the Europeans arrived.

I can agree with this. I don't know all about Native American migrations and wars specifically, so I am not gonna go ahead and deny it. Maybe there was some part of Native Americans who stayed on the land they originally claimed, but yeah probably most of them moved around a bit in America.

However, if everyone's place of stay is result of some past migrations, then everyone is an indirect migrant, or in other words, they are descendants of migrants.

Fauxlaw wouldn't be in USA today, he wouldn't even have citizenship of USA, if it wasn't for migrants. Actually, depending on causation reproduction line chain, maybe he wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for migrations.

It's why I say that opposing migrations is almost always opposing your own ancestors. Other than maybe few isolated tribes, everyone else moved here and there.

And I think Native Americans are exception if they came there first. A territory not populated by humans is not a claimed territory. Migrants are people who move from one country to another. Unclaimed territory isnt a country. At minimum, a country must have some people in it first.

the logic behind my original point about someone being a migrant is:

Migrants = (this equals) offspring of migrants in USA

No migrants = No offspring of migrants in USA

If one were to argue for "no migrants", while he himself being an offspring of migrants, he is arguing for "no offspring of migrants in USA" as well.

the two arent separable. there is no one without another. Its like saying A is only possible when B. If one argues for no B, he is by result arguing for no A.

So even if you arent a migrant, your place of staying is a result of migrations which you oppose. (Not you personally, I am just making general statements).

However, if one's place of staying is result of migrations, he is still an indirect migrant. If migrations didnt happen, Fauxlaw wouldnt live in USA. His staying in USA is a complete result of migrations he opposes. Its why I call him a migrant.

Fauxlaw opposes migrants, and I told him that migrants are the reason he is even in USA now. His mere presence in USA is product of migrations.

You responded to comment meant for Fauxlaw, so I responded to Fauxlaw's perspective.

If you oppose to migrants, and your parents are migrants, then you oppose to them coming to a country in the first place, and thus indirectly oppose to your own staying because you are the result of migrations.

Maybe Native Americans were from some place, but if America was empty before they moved there, then they are not migrants but first settlers.

the advantage of being a brainless monk is that you have no any problems in life, and your life is neither good nor bad. It just is. People who are brainless have no any problems in life.

The ancient ones were simple-hearted

and blended with the common people

They did not shine forth

They did not rule with cleverness

So the nation was blessed

Now the rulers are filled with clever ideas

and the lives of people are filled with hardship

So the nation is cursed

Have you ever looked at a clever person and thought "Damn, he is so stupid"?

thats because being clever is not an advantage in life. Its actually a disadvantage.

tao knows that everything has a balance. If someone is clever, he might think its good for him,

however brainless monk laughs as balance of light and dark is restored and clever person

loses where he thought he would win.

What is the main problem of a clever person? Clever person has three problems.

First problem is that he finds problem in everything, so he is overburdened by problems

in his life.

Second problem is that clever people disagree in their cleverness, causing a fight and conflict in nation.

third problem is that clever person doesnt just solve problems. Clever person creates problems.

Using all their energy to constantly solve problems leaves nation out of resources.

All problems are created by the clever mind.

Mind free of thoughts does not think there are

any problems, so such mind lives in heaven while clever mind lives in hell.

Words born of the mind are not true

True words are not born of the mind

Those who have virtue do not look for faults

Those who look for faults have no virtue

Those who come to know It

do not rely on learning

Those who rely on learning

do not come to know It

The Sage sees the world

as an expansion of his own self

So what need has he to accumulate things?

By giving to others

he gains more and more

By serving others

he receives everything

Heaven gives,

and all things turn out for the best

The Sage lives,

and all things go as Tao goes

all things move as the wind blows

Let every state be simple

like a small village with few people

There may be tools to speed things up

ten or a hundred times

yet no one will care to use them

There may be boats and carriages

yet they will remain without riders

There may be armor and weaponry

yet they will sit collecting dust

The people must take death seriously

and not waste their lives in distant lands

Let them return

to the knotting of cord

Let them enjoy their food

and care for their clothing

Let them be content in their homes

and joyful in the way they live

After settling a great dispute

some resentment is sure to remain

Being content with what you have

is always best in the end

The Sage always assumes the debt

as if holding the left side of a contract

He gives and gives, and wants nothing in return

One with true virtue

always seeks a way to give

One who lacks true virtue

always seeks a way to get

To the giver comes the fullness of life

to the taker just an empty hand

Though the Tao of Heaven has no favorites

it always sides with one who has a pure heart

Everything is faith. Even belief that you exist is entirely faith.

this is due to infinite regress problem in premises in deductive logic. If each starting premise needs to be proved with deductive logic, and starting premise of that deductive logic needs also be proved with more deductive logic, an infinite regress is created where person never reaches end.

Observation suffers from same problem, because proving that you observe something likewise leads to infinite regress.

Well, whatever the word is, when you apply it to migrants, you apply it to yourself because you are a migrant.

No, a woman is defined by DNA in 99.99999993% of humanity.

No, DNA doesnt contain word "woman" anywhere in it, and even if it somehow did, there is no reason to accept such definition any more there would be a reason to accept definition from dictionary. to accept a definition or to use a different one, is entirely a choice. So being a woman is a choice too.

I dont support other trans people because they were mean to me, but I realized trans ideology is logically fully correct. Definitions are always a choice. If I can define a woman as me, then I become a woman. Same way for trans age. this is why trans ideology is logically superior, due to is-definition gap, where something which exists as is cannot be logically made equal to any definition, so its a product of choice.

If you dont like people who "step over some country's line", then surely you hate your ancestors.

Dictionary is just definitions a larger group of people chose. Its still a choice.

You choosing to define "woman" in some specific way is entirely a choice. the fact that its a choice shows how being "woman" is a choice.

When it comes to war, having more advanced technology isn't always an advantage.

This is true especially in cases of bad cost to effect ratio of advanced technology.

Take example of Nazi Germany. In WW2, Nazi Germany had best tanks. In any one on one scenario, Panther and Tiger II tanks of Nazi Germany would win almost always against any Soviet tank in Soviet arsenal.

So how did Soviets win the tank battle then???

Panther maybe was best tank 1 on 1, but that was also it's biggest weakness.

Panther, due to being very advanced technologically, took too long to produce, and it was expensive.

Because of that, by the time 1 panther arrived on battlefield, about 5 to 10 Soviet tanks would arrive.

And the same amount of money used to make 1 panther could make 10 soviet tanks.

Despite being better 1 on 1, the cost of production and low speed of production made it essentially guaranteed enemy will have far greater tank numbers on the battlefield.

Same applies to fighter planes. Nazi Germany had by far, and I do really mean by far, best fighter planes on battlefield.

They were the first to develop jet fighters, which outperformed any plane which was in existence back then.

Problem? They only had like 20 jet fighters going against thousands of enemy planes. Jet fighters didn't even have enough ammo to take out all the enemies.

Jet fighters were by far most superior 1 on 1 aircraft in existence, but they were also far more costly, far more difficult to produce, far slower to produce, far slower to actually be put on battlefield.

Because of this, they were very low in number when they appeared.

Nazi Germany likewise was first to develop long range rockets, rockets which could be fired from Germany and hit Britain.

Problem? The amount of rockets actually needed to make a difference was a lot greater than amount of rockets Germany actually had.

So despite having better technology in almost all areas of war at the time, Nazi Germany lost by far.

Maybe if Nazi Germany developed nuclear or atomic weapons, there would have been some bigger change.

However, the technology they were developing always had these characteristics:

1. It was expensive

2. It was slow to produce

3. It didn't have sufficient numbers

4. It didn't have sufficient impact on the battlefield

Despite being most advanced technology on the battlefield, at same time it was losing badly on that same battlefield, because enemy could simply outnumber it with cost-efficient technology.

And now we arrive to modern battlefield, where once again cost efficiency is one of most important things in question.

What is cost efficiency?

Cost efficiency is reducing the amount of resources and time needed to make same effect.

It is one of most important things, because if something is not cost efficient, it will be outnumbered and out sustained.

Best example of this are drones.

Drones by all standards are just smaller pilot-less versions of WW2 planes. They have propeller, they carry a bomb, they move slow, they are no match for modern jet fighters in any 1 vs 1 scenario.

So why are drones dominating the battlefield???

Because it's cheaper to produce 10000 drones than one modern jet fighter.

New generation jet fighters have their cost rise to billions.

Compared to that, drone can cost less than 10,000$.

So one could make 10000 drones before one makes just 1 jet fighter.

Also, the problem with modern jet fighters, and why they are being outperformed by WW2 style mini aircraft, is also effect.

Modern jet fighters don't have any big effect on the battlefield.

They carry few rockets and also a machine gun, and maybe few bombs.

By comparison, 10000 drones will always cause bigger damage to enemy than 1 modern jet fighter.

Cost is same, but effect favors 10000 drones over 1 jet.

This was maybe best displayed in case where North Korea sent a group of drones in South Korea. South Korea raised jets and helicopters who were shooting those drones for 5 hours. None of the drones were hit. All drones returned intact to North Korea. South Korea was embarrassed because it's entire advanced air superiority couldn't take out few small drones because the small size of drones made them difficult to hit.

Same applies to modern tanks and their counter - infantry small anti tank rocket launchers.

Modern tanks cost so much money to produce, that in comparison, one such tank would be met against about 4000 anti tank rocket launchers, who have way more damage potential.

Cost efficiency of effect is everything on the battlefield.

It's not the best tank that wins, but it's the tanks which are most cost efficient.

It's not the best aircraft which wins, but aircraft which is most cost efficient.

Yes. Tao is not about thinking. It is about leading people with example of mindless monk.

AI cannot defeat Taoism, because Tao is nothingness. It cannot be destroyed.

Tao does not compete, so nothing can compete with it.

Yes, clever and smart people are usually the dumbest. It is Tao producing a parody for entertainment.

But gender [should really be called sex, like it was until psychiatry went woke] choice, no matter how whacked it is to claim, is not a personal choice

So you choose to think that gender isn't a choice?

It is a choice by choice of definition. If definition is a choice, so is gender.

Taoism like most things needs to be afforded

No, Taoism is nothingness. It doesn't require anything. It is everything else which needs to be afforded and disappears eventually anyway.

I'm guessing that Lucy's obsession will be as short lived as most of their other temporary fascinations were/are.

No, my obsession with Taoism and Satanism dates back years. I only needed to understand it more so I know that Taoism is much better than Christianity.

It's reason why Chinese people don't think.

You are trying to engage ex post facto law

No, I am just wondering if you hate migrants, why approve of the ones who stay even longer.