So, I challenged you to go find his address that was posted to read in its entirety, and you, instead, pull up short tweet. Go toTrumop's full posted commentary. It's available to access if you want to try to read his entire message. Your post isn't it. I haven't provided the convenient link because I want you to do the research yourself, just as I had to do.
You ignore we have agreement with Israel to protect her, or do we pick and choose our agreements with foreign countries at the whim of media or political convenience of choice?
Such is an obsession relating to a former...
fill in the blank. And are you not just as obsessed with my claim that faith is a sense we can learn to use?
Did I claim I am the only one who can calibrate a thermometer? Show me. I said I know how to calibrate, not that I am the only one who can. Or are you just putting words in my mouth again just to justify your denial position. Stop.
scientists (not Al Gore) confidently tell us that climate has been dramatically influenced over a relatively short period of time by human activity
I have never denied that. But, I also accept other, more experienced scientists in more experienced sciences who say the Earth's climate has been, millions of years ago, more noxious and violent than it is now, and mammals like us still survived, regardless, while lacking the science to artificially change their environment by building protective structures. Al Gore denies that, so why not criticize him? All I'm saying is that we may not be suffering an existential threat quite to the degree AlGore, and others claim. Bitching about our climate has, so far, not solved anything but transfer of wealth to un. deserving pockets. Big deal, one use, as I have repeatedly asked: where is the magical AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum? You have yet to answer the question. Isn't it about existential time?
Well, just reading your last post, you claim
In fact no one actually knows the answer.
and then claim:
if one asks who is the cause, one immediately applies an erroneous precept.
IF, "in fact" one asks "who" of "what," and according to you "no one knows," how, then, do you know anything is erroneous?
It's much easier to first assume a truth, and then go prove it to yourself, by the means I have suggested; "emperical" means, as it happens, but extended beyond just the five acknowledged human senses. Have you not seen or read the evidence of people missing one of those five developing enhanced remaining senses? So, even with just the five, ode can learn to use them to an enhanced degree, let alone e learning others the animals have by their nature, and we can learn them, too. So, I add faith as one of those learnable added senses, and you think I'm the one who is touched in the head?
How is the voting rubric accessed without having the website link you provided. It should be a mended item, along with CoC, etc, like DART had
97% to 99% consensus among climate scientists
I did note that climate science has been around for 200 years, nit just 150. I also noted that physics is thousands of years old. I will also note that our mammalian ancestors 140M years ago had much the same physiology as we humans have today, and sustained and survived a much more noxious atmosphere with rampant vulcanism than we experience today. Our "climate change" is a picnic compared to then, and they survived and thrived. What does "climate science" say about that? I'm still waiting because they don't talk about it. They're infants compared to physicists and geologists, not to mention pure mathematicians. So, that a high percentage of them agree is no surprise to me; they lack depth, and their alleged measurement techniques and consistency of measurement process and equipment use is disastrous. Such matters were my career as a process engineer and manager; I am a Six Sigma Black Belt, and measurement accuracy was my bread and butter. Climate science is a petulant child. How often, do you think, is just their temperature measurement tools calibrated, and do they use the same equipment worldwide? No.
Let me tell you about one such...
Scientists use instrumental data, historical records, and physics-based models
The steel tanks used to "measure" ocean tsunami effects? Rectangular tank, flat bottom, perpendicular sides, and a paddle to create "ocean" waves? Show me that ocean that is "duplicated" measured by such playthings.. I've been in four of the five of those oceans, missing the Southern Antarctic.. Never saw one that looks like a shoe box, metal or cardboard. Physical based? Sure, if the ocean is a box. Hint: it ain't.
Trump literally, explicitly, called for the termination
I know that is a popular refrain among wokenesses who have little regard for more complicated grammatical structure, and you obviously missed it. No, Trump did not call for termination of the Constitution, not in part nor in whole. The entire commentary is clearly preceded by a conditional introduction that most of the media missed entirely. I have a PhD in English Lit. I am familiar with the syntax of my mother tongue, and its lexicon. Conditional set-up is not common, but does have its purpose, and Trump used it well, and none of it was a factual suggestion that such alleged dismissal was is politics. Sorry to disappoint, but the language is there to be read in the complete transcript, void off the added, non -Trump language applied by the media.
All my indoor/outdoor lights will be on for y'all tonight, as I do every Earth Day [but not until after sunset].
Just had a battery pack installed last month for my 37-panel solar array, so it will cost me nothing this year.
Frankly, I didn't think much of McCain, either. I respect his military service, but he was not presidential material, ever. Nope, didn't vote for that one.
Then, what the hell was Einstein [a can-do] doing at Yale to meet with, among other students, my father, to enlighten them [a teaching exercise, after all], my friend, and Albert spent a good portion of his later life doing exactly that. Maybe G.B.Shaw never met him, or anyone like him, and I do not appreciate anyone who belittles teaching, G.B. included. Am I to think none of his plays taught anyone anything? Seems he was only talking about himself, and maybe he was a self-depricating son of a Bernard. [read -itch]
I didn't specifically refer to sensory perception....It was you who raised the issue.
Yes, I did, because sensory perception is how science develops answers to theories and assumes to prove truth. I'm also saying we're not limited to 5 modes of perception, and that is contrary to current science's assessment for anthropomorphic capability; something they call "empirical evidence." They self-limit to 5 perception modes, only. Unfortunate, but, there it is. Plato spoke of shadow on the wall of a cave... shadows because we have more senses available to us to investigate and have experience using, and then the shadows will come into the light to reveal themselves for what they truly are: Among other things, more modes of perception of truth than we originally thought. But, what muddles the experience of life is the assumption that some modes of learning are fully-developed sciences, such as climate change. It's only 200 years old, trying to be physics, which is thousands of years in existence, and therefore has a healthy dose of maturity and reality. Climate change is not yet a science, but it has managed to become a get-rich-quick scheme, or at least a re-appropriation of funds scheme and little else. Example: show me a climate on Earth that sustains an environment of ±1.5º C. There's not a single climate on Earth that does that. Nor does it consider that the human mind can conceive of means to survive environments that fluctuate hundred of degrees in excess of that limited scope that some idiot like politician AlGore, inconveniently pulled out of his arse and called it "science."
The first error is to try to fit in my head to assume my thoughts. Nope. Not even his holiness, A.I., can do that. No, any being that exhibits anthropomorphic characteristics is going to be a who, never a what. That's my view. Sorry to not go along with yours, but I'm willing to accept you want a what as a supreme being.
I understand the frustration, and one of them is not having any of the CofCs or Instructions as we had on DART. I don't know what they're waiting for to post that information, but in the meantime, new users who have no experience with this type of site do not have a roadmap to follow, and it shows, both in their debate participation and in their voting. There's a fully organized management and operations team of people, now, but still treat the site like a new start-up. We're a partial handful of months from a year in operation. Time to mature-up.
Within my vote, Also suggested what I have with this post. After posting my vote, I realized I might acquire more traction - at least more eyes-on the dilemma - than with my vote, alone.
your vote doesn't actually even out Kohai's vote
No you're correct, but Kohai is a friend, and not just because we've shared avatars, but because we've engaged in a number of competitive debates and I enjoy seeing how he thinks, and I think he thinks the same about me. And I detest lack of effort, both on argument in debate and by non-voting. I don't top the voting list for nothing.
And I wonder if G.B. was looking in the mirror when that thought hit him?
Agreed, but we don't do that, either. I just don't think any lack of effort deserves a vote.
Had no one else voted, I woulds not have bothered, but, not voting is a big problem because there is little incentive, but it is not an unpopular activity among this membership. I wanted to do as much as possible to even the score, at least. I have avoided voting on such debates before, but I don't like the denial.
Example: the debate Islam is Useless in Every sense [https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/71/islam-is-useless-in-every-sense], neither opponent enter argument. Pro [the instigator] forfeited each round, a full forfeiture, and thus automatic loss, but Con never wrote an argument in any round, but merely acknowledged forfeiture by Pro on round one, and rested on that statement for the balance of rounds, That is not a winning argument, either, so should not deserve to win, but there is a vote declaring Con the winner. How can one win a debate merely by default, It skews the rating of the opponent who has not legitimately offered argument. Surely, that cannot be. I argue. for adding a fourth voting option: a null vote, which does not award either opponent.
The null vote is needed to distinguish such debate results from a debate in which both opponents participate, but on which no voter registers any vote, which result is rendered as a tie. On DART, I was one of the leading contenders for such debate results: a tie because no one voted even though both participants participated. A tie is deserved in that instance, but not as above. In the case presented above, neither opponent even deserves the tie since neither participated. There must be a legit argument to meet BoP by at least one participant in at least one round in order to deserve a winning vote by at least one voter. If participants agree to a debate, to win or draw, they must participate in at least one round, better, of course, in all rounds. When one forfeits, the other can enter argument, and then waive following rounds to the end, or until the forfeiting participant enters argument in a later round.
Iran's problem, regardless who is the U.S. President, though most since Carter have not understood this point, and have not treated Iran with the position the U.S. should have always maintained, is they Iran, and its proxies, brought a gun to what was never to be a fight. Yes, I know the routine; don't bering a knife to a gun fight. But that presumes there is and should be a fight. And, yes, this misunderstanding has been the plight of human relations since Ug and Tok. Two thousand years ago, we heard a viable message: "love your enemies." It is only by that practice that "enemy" becomes a demonstrated, useless word, because there is then no meaning to it. Peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the preferred state of affairs of true civilization. As the US Constitution's Preamble states it: "A more perfect union."
It is my considered opinion that what professors think of students is mostly irrelevant, but I imagine that if Kelley thought that of Trump, it's mostly rooted in the grades Kelley imposed on the man just but spite rather than. by legitimate grading because, clearly Kelley dislike this student. Doesn't say much for him, either.. The reverse is also true; students can dislike teachers. It is in my case for some of my professors. In Kelley's case, I know nothing of Kelley's politics, nor, for that matter, his academic acumen other than that he was a university professor of marketing, of whom there are very good ones and very poor ones in any discipline. But marketing is, in industry, mostly a matter, first, of putting down the competition rather than justifying one's own true excellence, if it exists.
Your "wishful thinking" is flawed. "Unprovable" assumes you depend only on the 5 senses many unfortunates recognize as "proof" of theory as fact, or "true:" sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. But who says these are the limit of empirical knowledge when some animal forms exhibit additional senses: echo location, magneto perception, hemosensation, and others, some of which humans have between able to demonstrate learning to sense. Were the animals exhibiting these senses sufficiently sentient, they would laugh at your limitation to 5 senses. Well, in that added volume of dependable senses, I add faith, the ability to sense not just divine truth, but all truth in every quarter of the body of knowledge. I suspect you include in such an idea as "belief," and not the assurance of truth. And just as the sense of smell is limited to things that actually emit an odor, faith is operable only in things which are already true, or it is mere belief with no substantial evidence of truth.
let's just say that you had never heard of the concept of yoga...
No, "let's" not say, because I know what yoga is, and particularly that its is not a "who" but definitely a "what." It is not the name of a person who developed the technique of specific bodily movements, being a word originating in the Indian holy writ, the Rig Vega; a word meaning "to yoke" as in two or more cattle, or "to unite." That is, a spiritually driven routine to unite physical body and etherial spirit, the complete human soul of two parts.
And the majority of people who believe in a god characterize that god in at least partially human form, even though some cultures united that being in the form of both human and animal creatures. About 72% of humanity believes God is of anthropomorphic nature, therefore definitively a "who," and add to the percentage those who believe God is a combined form of human and animal.
Earlier [post #6] I implied there was a federal statute imposed on private industry to allow voters time off to vote on Election Day. There is such a bill which IU was thinking already passed, but it has been stuck in House committee for the last 4 years with no evidence that it will move out of committee any rime soon. 21 States currently have no federal, state or county statute making that a requirement, so it is only 29 states that do so.
At least I'll admit it. Yes, Oba'a made me deranged. "I will fundamentally change America," Oba'a said in his 2008 campaign. Since the Constitution is the foundation of America, those are fighting words.
As you say, the claim that only Christians matter is not of constitutional origin, so, no, that is not to be assumed. It may be the attitude that some have, but, just as racism is not systemic, even though that is claimed, it is clearly an individual racism issue, even if more than one individual is racist. It is not systemic because it is not current statutory text. It used to be, yes, but no longer. No current federal or state or municipal law contains racist text. period. Same for religious preference, just that all religions are to be respected, nor none, just as with race [which doesn't biologically exist, anyway, according to the Human Genome Project].
The U.S. private industry is obligated to allow workers time-off to vote, and cannot impose on that allowance, so no holiday is required. It is an expected allowance because voting day s no secret so businesses can adequately plan accordingly to allow a couple of hours of time off. Virtually all phones today log date/time for each photo and preserve it as part of the metadata. This feature can be shutoff by the user on most phones, but who would want to do that if they want to prove their voting day actions?
Some of you have previously, bitterly complained that Trump was a draft dodger with a 1-Y classification during the 60s [Vietnam] for bone spurs, but did any of you know and mention that Biden had the same 1-Y classification for asthma-dodge? Both also had legitimate education deferments. In addition, Trump's draft lottery number was #356, meaning his birthdate was the 356th day drawn from a "hat," and since the draft never exceeded #195, how would have never been drafted, anyway? oops. Biden, born before the earliest year considered for the draft [1944], did not have a draft lottery number [a recognized old white man], but was still given deferment.
One less issue you can drop from woke complaints.
prayer is either an internal or vocalised self to self conversation
Wrong. MY questions go exactly where intended, and I have response.
"Who" / "What"
Within the grammatical context of the discussion, and by your own words, which discuss the syntax of "who" and "what," you're violating your own context to assume God is a "what" because you consider Him an unknown. You're wrong. Fix that [and I have told you how to fix it], we'll discuss further.
