Hey, Intel, welcome back. Good to see you here.
Hey, Intel, welcome back. Good to see you here.
Seems to me, the kid in the video is rtrxing to talk over a recently exercised premature efactulation. He deserves a spike in the head from CFMPs
No, I do not mean Certified Financial Marketing Professional. It's a little more personal than that.
Leaning's statements in post #3 are spot on correct. No assumption there at all.
Because, so I hear, and, owning guns myself, I am witness to the fact that a gun, without the assist of a human brain and a hand, is a mere unused tool a bit like a spoon. Ban the people if you want to ban something.
Personally, I'm opposed to that, too. I've just concluded that in a free society, their are bad behavors, and, unfortunately, successful legislating of human behavior is not possible. Plenty of non-violent criminals in prisons are proof of that.
I wish it were. Makes for a good word, but... no such luck. That should have been English - duplicates.
To answer the question: no; because peace is so much more than the mere absence of war [or violence]. Peace is a positive condition. Example: I use a two-room argument with a shared wall and one door in that wall. One room is filled with light, a positive substance. The other room is in total darkness when the door is closed [it is then a "wall," itself]. But darkness is not a substance; it is the absence of any substance. Now, open the door, which condition of one room invades the other? Answer: light invades the dark room because of the substance issue. Dark does not invade light; only the reverse.
Render the light as peace, and peace, then, has substance, and is, therefore, an active participant in individual lives for good. Since there is nothing good in physical violence, it cannot be good.
One may think that one is merely violent by influence of another who is also violent, but, that is merely influence. The person influenced must decide to also be violent; there is not coercion, particularly when no physical force is applied. We decide to be peaceful, or not, on our own. Free will, not universal determinism.
Good topic! If your question involves definition, my answer could be lengthy because I have written an entire 250-page book [still in editing at present] on the subject, by definition, and by practical application, but, as a summary, I key on Paul's 11th chapter of Hebrews, in which he offers definition, summarized by verse 1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [KJV] The key words are "substance" and "evidence;" both of which align nicely within a legal context of those terms. "Substance" is physical evidence, and, mostly, "evidence" takes a physical form.
Therefore, I remove from from belief as separate concepts altogether. Belief can center on things which are not true as easily as can be centered on truth. Belief stretches credibility and is still acceptable to some. Faith, however, by Paul's definition, requires more "substance" and "evidence" to be operable, and must lead to truth, or it is not faith; it is mere belief.
Therefore, I think faith as a substantive a sense as are our typical five" sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching; all physical senses on which science depends. I think faith is a sixth sense; an added sense such as some animals have, how mostly have our same five, but add sensitivity to magnetic north, or echo location. Also physical senses. Further, we are finding that some people do exhibit these other senses, so my adding faith to the list seems appropriate.
Wondering if Debate Conduct, etc, rules will be posted soon, even if they are dulicatres of DebateArt rules in the alpha mode. Specifically wondering if debate round sourcing list can continue to be posted in Comments within a given debate if character count is in danger of being exceeded by arguments?
Art's enjoyable.
Since I've been involved with it my entire life [Mom once told me I was born with a crayon in hand], I must agree. That was my left hand. Mom kept trying to take it to put it in my right hand, and she said [before I was old enough to communicate other than by expression] that I scowled at her and put it back in my left. Dad told me his parents tried to do the same thing to him - that he was naturally left handed, but became righthanded for his parents' sake, and he was not about to treat me the same way. He won, thank God. My bride, and our daughter, area both left-handed, too, and it imprinted on our first dog; when she caught on to "shaking hands," she always extended her left front paw.
My dad's advice was short and very sweet; "Be ambitious, plan, and execute. Rinse and repeat." It works.
Valid points, all. yield.
Thank you. I definitely married up.
We have a beautiful daughter who is, today, a paramedic, and two grandchildren who take after their mother and gram.
Sure I do
Then, I retract. Good for you. Yeah, get on with silver. I see a great future in its investment.
Silver is a good investment. My gold is all 1 & 10 oz. bars [haven't bought gold for more than 10 years], but I buy both bars and coins in silver.
Just in support of AI advancement, silver use in industry will be a rocket. I advise getting in it soon. I've given my wife a number of jewelry pieces in silver and turquoise, mostly of native American themes.
With, not at, but I do try to keep her amused. Must be doing something right. Most marriages, according to AI [and you know I trust AI about as far as I can throw a house] collapse after 8 years. In this instance, my observation is that that 8 may be an exaggeration.
My bride, at our first meeting in 1971, drawn in Adobe Illustrator from photo] 55 years ago,
married two years later. Took me a while of convincing, even though, at the time, I happened
to be driving her favorite car, a yellow volkswagen bug with black convertible top. Still is her
favorite, as it turns out, but I never replaced it, and she was unimpressed with the red Porsche
I bought for our 10th anniversary.
"Prediction is very difficult, specially about the future." -- Niels Bohr
This is mistakenly attributed to Bohr by numerous sources, including yours, and articles in newspapers and academic journals, due to popularity as a Danish proverb. It's not original to Bohr.
Btw, my wife is Danish, and is familiar with the proverb, so she laughed at me when I offered the quote as from Niels Bohr.
And if you read a lot of whacky stuff...
Perhaps you can get away with that argument for some, but that kind wrinkled shirt is not sure of having a backbone, let alone a strong personal stand on issues. I do have a strong stand on most issues, and not shy about expressing them. Being three quarter centuries around the sun either gives one a backbone, or a worthless life. One's choice when one is young. It's just, by my observation, that most cower from that challenge. Look, I was in the Avalon Ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel in L.A. in June '68 when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, after having a gun in my face just a month before, wielded by a guy robbing the register of the ice cream shop in which I worked, and within the year, in France, I faced another guy with a gun in my face who objected to Americans in France because we were bungling in Vietnam. I told him we wouldn't be there at all if France had not bungled their effort in their colony. I've faced stress and threat on my life. My database does not have whacky, while facing territory that does.
As if Harvard and Trump are on speaking terms. Harvard? I hear they area giving away cereal boxtop JD's.
I approve of government buying gold
Fine, but, so what? You make no mention of private party investment in ourselves. Why not? You're all government, government, government, government, ad nauseam. Government is NOT the solution.
As I said in my #3 post above, quoting from your #2
Money printing plus low taxes plus medium to low government expenses are ideal way.
Fed Res Chair Powell is a bitter and useless old man. US real GDP for Q2 2025 is +3% per : U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
As for Goldman Sachs, here's their last five years of S&P predictions:
They have apparently changed their tune after being so consecutively wrong:
Never heard of photoshop?
Don't you know, yet, the internet is fool's gold? Any shit you want to see and hear.
Who the hell is prepyou.eu? Some Brit outfit in Bulgaria selling firearms to who knows who?
And they make damn sure to show thier i.d. in minuscule font needling a magnifier to even see it clearly. But they'll sell you any shyte you want to hear. Hell, American television does that.
God in heaven! We've absolutely lost our minds, thinking Government is suppsed to sing us lullabies to sleep every night?
NOOOOOOOOOO!
Government's job is basically two-fold;
Article !, Section 8 lists 18 things government should legislate to accomplish nothing more than those two objectives. Congress runs amok doing just about everything else, but. But then, while they all swear to uphold the Constitution, damn few of them have ever read it! They have notions about what it is, but those notions are what's on Main Street's mom & pop's.
Period, full stop.
So, you've covered one leg of Trump's 4-leg plan. A chair is a little unstable with only one leg. Trump knows that.
That said, your last entry:
Money printing plus low taxes plus medium to low government expenses are ideal way.
is absurd. Who said the only money supply available is by printing it? What ever happened to the endless availability of money by being a productive, free market capitalist? Oba'a said, once in 2010 "There comes a time when you have made enough money." Bullshyte!
He is 100% wrong. There is no end to a productive attitude, and, therefore, no end to money supply. I started buying gold when it was $400 per ounce. It's now over $3,400 per ounce. I expect it to rise higher over the long haul. That is a personal money supply increase of a significant amount, and I did nothing but buy it, and now I am worth more than I was 40 years ago when I started buying without have the government print a single dollar for me. I now own over 100 lbs of the stuff; silver, too. What are you thinking???
Oh, another gem of yours: "The government should reasonably cover all 4."
Bullshyte. The government5 ought to get out of its own way, and private productivity's as well. Givernment produces NOTHING. It is there tor protect from invasion of our borders, and
THAT'S IT. The rest is up to us.
Donald Trump reportedly owned a copy of Adolf Hitler’s speeches
I currently own and have read Marx & Engels Commuinist Manifesto, Mao Zedong's Little Red Book, and Vladimir Lenin's The State and Revolution. By your logic, that makes me a Communist. Nope. See my post #10. You're a glove's fit.
It's called, by the way, "know your enemy." That's from Sun Tsu's The Art of War. Own that, too.
I'm not Muslim, but I own the Quran, not Bhuddist, but own Tripitaka, and not Wiccan, but own the Book of Shadows.
Get it? I read. A lot. But I keep my own thoughts.
I will demonstrate to y'all that just because you may employ what you understand to be a syllogism, it may not be at all, even though that's the tag you put around its neck.
A syllogism is a logical argument in which a number of posits are posed that are assumed to be true, and when they are, they naturally lead to the justification of the conclusion; Here's a simple example;
P1: 2 is a number
P2: 1+1 yields a number
P3: numbers can be added together to yield a sum
C1: 4 is the sum of P1 and P2.
The rule of a syllogism is that all posits must be true and they must yield the conclusion, and that, therefore, the conclusion is conditional on the truth of the posits, and the conclusion must equal the result of each posits to also be true. If P2 = 1-1 is a number, and that condition does exist as a possible posit, however, the C1 statement ends up being false. Posits and conclusions must all be true. Therefore, another game:
P1: Birds fly
P2: Camels walk
P3: Snakes crawl
C1: Therefore, butterflies swim.
And that's your "syllogism."
therefore they're the same
Well, there's a justification. Do you think that because the US "acquired" [we bought it] the Louisiana Purchase in Oct 1803, under the admin of Tommy Jefferson [a Democrat-Republican - which was the precursor to the Democrat Party] and Trump talks about "acquiring" Greenland, that Tommy and Trump are therefore the same? Your argument.