I'm sure you would agree that not all laws are justified.
Yes, however, there is a right and a wrong way to address what may be an unjustified law. It's not by violent, destrructive unlawful behavior by the public in thename of unjustified law. It's in the 1A and in Article I [see election and re-election of Congress]. Why can't that be the guide for even woke whackos? Invitation by DSA to dump the Senate, the President, and stack the Court with biased Justices is not justified.
That Trump uses words to trigger the media because they have an unhealthy mandate to bury him, and that he knows what triggers them, and will do so at his whim, is not news to anyone. So, why be triggered by him as well? What does the wokism afflicting Peggy Flanagan have to do with Trump other than that she, too, is triggered by him?
Except when it doesn't.
Given the population of Earth, valid statistics demand that the sample size be just a little larger than 0.00000007% of that population, and, out of a decent six-sigma sample, the definition of woman is sufficiently demonstrated by DNA. The percentage I've indicated, according to the U.S. Library of Medicine, is the estimated number of true intersex individuals in the world. "Estimated" because such assurance comes only by DNA testing a significant sample size of the population. At 8B, the population is statistically considered as an infinite population, and there are separate considerations of test sampling in that range. At a strict six-sigma level, where Z = 6.0 yields a sample size of 10,000 individuals. Not out of the realm of possibility, but no one has yet signed up to perform the test. Are we afraid the estimate is either way too low or too high?
However, re: Jackie Blakenship, if her DNA indicates XY chromosomes, she is not a biological woman, in spite of appearance. Appearance, alone, does not define sex. We do not use clothing, or even hormones, to define our sex, regardless of what we "choose." A DNA test does if we have not figured it out, yet, on our own.
All the Bible mentions is the Jewish men’s circumcised pricks and God’s exposed Bible that Moses was allowed to see
Apparently, you have not read the Bible cover-to-cover. I have, and it contains just a little more information than you acknowledge, but I understand the tight restriction of your effort. Try again after reading all. I do, still, having already been c-to-c more than a handful of times, and in four languages.
Who said I'm angry? Your assumption
if two neighboring countries each refuse to let their citizens enter the other.
Based on an earlier post I made, no sovereign country in the world allows the citizens of another country to simply invade another country, as we did up to just a year and change ago. Order is established, first, by being law-abiding. I don't agree that "natural rights" allow indiscriminate migration to wherever we choose without abiding by that nation's established immigration law.
No, not quite right. I see nothing about "assimilation" imposed on migrants. What I see is the expectation to be obedient to the U.S. law. When they start their
American experience by breaking the law, that's not a good start, and only gets worse, sucking up taxpayer money to support themselves because many have no skills or education to do so adequately.
Irrelevant is-should fallacy.
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.
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.
So one needs only to change the law to allow more migrants in, legally.
Yes, so, change the law, if you can. But as long as the law is what it currently is, Biden had no business defying the law by appointing the salad-kook as the "border czar," since her one visit to the border did nothing to "stem the flow" as Biden declared needed to be done in March 2021, and he erred in not following up and doing nothing about his salad-kook.
I've repeated this post to you elsewhere because I expected such a response. The problem you have here is the age-old premise that repetition, expecting different results, is the clear evidence of insanity
Oh yeah, the good old times.
Some things do not change. Here's an example:
Eternity: a past-eternal universe bypasses the need for a first cause; therefore, a starting premise is unnecessary. Logic only demands an explanation for things that begin to exist, but eternity implies no beginning and no end. Therefore, logic is not capable, on its own, of demonstrating eternity unless one is able to shift from a sequential proof to a timeless necessary existence.
According to the OED:
n. An adult female human being. The counterpart of man.
"ask a stupid question..."
You forget that I have had a sentient conversation with James Watson in 1966, and have posted it on this platform. Nothing better than being able to speak in-person with the horse's mouth in regard to the modern understanding of DNA, and its properties and abilities. He predicted this very nonsense to me, and he was dead-on.
So no definitions of "woman" anywhere in it.
If you ignore the rest of my post. But, as a reader, ignorance cannot ignore the rest of my post as if I did not post it.
Yes, DNA defines exactly what a human woman is. Don't play fucking word games with the language just to think you're making a point. You're not, have not, and will not.
So just allow people to come in legally,
No sovereign country in the world today allows foreigners to enter completely unannounced and without some form of identity document or notification.
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.
A past-eternal universe bypasses the need for a first cause, therefore, a starting premise is unnecessary. Logic only demands an explanation for things that begin to exist, but eternity implies no beginning and no end. Therefore, logic is not capable, on its own, of demonstrating eternity unless one is able to shift from a sequential proof to a timeless necessary existence.
So you're saying sex is not binary?
By standard expected DNA process, yes, sex is binary. I acknowledge that normal, expected DNA process in very limited, multi-decimal consequences; "normal" results in variation from the standard. But in the obvious actual results, the variation is much, much smaller than even the standard deviation, statistically.
Once again, you use definitions that do not apply to the words used. An immigrant is one who goes to another country from the country in which they have been a member with the intent to become legally part of the new nation's society. 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]. A migrant is someone who crosses the border without the required behavior.
Where there is no official behavior required, such as was the case in 1625 on the shore of what is now MA, my ancestor was properly an immigrant. Today, there is official behavior required, and has been since the 1870s or 1880s. So today, the people for whom you want amnesty without a proper legal process are migrants. Get it?
That is utter nonsense. DNA does not use any spoken/written language of the type typical of human use. It is humans who have suggested the letter symbols of the four essential amino acids used to "write" DNA language, but the language does, in its vernacular, define very succinctly, "female." and "male" much more accurately than. any politician of Justice ever thought or hoped to do.
"hate" is not in my vocabulary. Get it? Yet? I say what I mean, mean what I say. Get it? Yet?
No, a woman is defined by DNA in 99.99999993% of humanity. The small percentage, called by science [once upon a time] as "intersex," express additional chromosomes beyond XX and XY, number, as tested, less than 600 individuals worldwide, as best as can be estimated [and it is absolutely identifiable if tested]. That small number does not account for sex by choice, but then, the "choice" does not express the physical features defined by XX and XY, [or XXY, XYY, etc], and does not prove that the "choice" is accurate. And choice, alone, cannot change the physical characteristics expressed uniquely by XX and XY. Curious, too, is that the assumed "all-inclusive" [which is DEI, after all, isn't it?] assumption made by those who fly the LBGTQ+ flag do not account for the F and M that define 99.999...% of humanity. Why not?
Your #1 post refers to Hebrews 11, but takes a limited scope of what faith really is. Many equate "faith" to belief, but belief is merely an attitude of choice that makes no demands on anyone to act on what they believe, whereas Paul, throughout Hebrews, makes numerous references to the word, faith. In compiling all those Paulian references, it is obvious that Paul is placing greater assurance that faith is an action word, not one of mere choice to believe something where there is no self-compulsion to act on it. If faith does not drive resulting action, it simply is not faith. A common "Christian" attitude is that faith does not require "works," i.e., action because of faith. Rather, the argument is that faith alone is sufficient. Excuse my French, but, bullshyte. If faith is, as said uyp front in Hebrews 11: 1, that "faith is the assurance of what we hope for," why hope for anything if we're just going to sit on it and not do an ything about it? That makes zero sense.
And acting on faith is absolutely more than based on what we "see," or not [mostly what we don't see], but also what we don't sense by hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching. Basically, our given five senses, which are the basis for empirical evidence; all that science demands. And science is beginning to acknowledge that empirical evidence may actually have additional senses that other animals have [magnetic north, and echo location, for example], which humans do not naturally express, but that does not say these other senses cannot be learned by humans. Science is beginning to recognize that we can. I think faith is an additional sense that some have learned how to use, and many have not.
I am not compelled.
Hate is not the only response available to people who break the law merely by stepping over a line without following the law in doing so. No, I do not hate. That is not the only available emotion. I know woke has a singular feeling, but woke is dead. let alone past tense. How about fully living in the present?
https://www.ranker.com/list/kitchen-utensil-murder-weapons/jacob-shelton
Less likely to kill someone with a spoon from a distance of 50 feet, than with a gun at the same distance.
Criminology and law enforcement data indicate that the vast majority of fatal gun-related encounters occur at very close range—typically between 3 to 10 feet.
https://leb.fbi.gov/spotlights/officer-survival-spotlight-what-is-a-safe-distance
And, isn't it convenient to accuse Trump of being a whacko, just like in the first term accused of lying, but no examples or data given, as I have offered. Hell, everybody lies. EVERYBODY. So, what?
Only by being woke, which is dead, can definition be by choice. If definition is by choice, no one needs a dictionary to offer a standard. Are you opposed to standards?
At least I gave you a solid example of Flanagan's whackiness, but you cannot give me a commensurate example of Trump? You just make the claim and expect that to be sufficient? Fail.
Peggy Flanagan, current Lt. Gov of MN [and as whacko as her milktoast Governor], and wannabe DSA Governor, went through a litany of questions about her political platform. Asked if healthcare ought to be universally applied to all, she replied in the affirmative, using the example of gender fluidity, that the choice of gender was a trans right and part of healthcare.
Is gender choice healthcare? Why? If gender choice is healthcare, then hair color choice is also healthcare, because hair color is also a feature that can be changed daily at personal whim. 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.
You are trying to engage ex post facto law, which is illegal by the Constitution [Article I, section 9, clause 3], which is an attempted statute that retroactively changes the legal consequences of an action, usually by criminalizing an act that was legal when it was done, or by increasing the punishment for a crime after it was already committed. Nope, can't do that here, which is also the reason why the Democrat effort of reparations is illegal. Ny6 the way, it is also potentially a part of Trump's appeal against his NY conviction, because part of the charges go back to 2014, before the addition that the NY legislature added to NY law 175.10 making a felony of what was a misdemeanor, but the law's change did not happen until 2015. Can't make retroactive law [that's ex post facto]. Apparently, the whacko judge in that trial screwed up his explanation of the law to the jury. Very convenient. Also really dumb.
Social media. Though it cannot be defined as formal debate, SM is all about both written and verbal debate, so, no, I do not believe written debate is a dying breed.
If the first year of being an immigrant is bad, surely 400 years of being an immigrant is way worse.
No, you're hung up on a wider definition of "immigrant" than was ever intended by definition plus legislated statutory law. You are insisting that "migrant" and "immigrant" mean the same thing. Not in any non-woke definition are these words identical by definition.
Remember: woke is dead. It should have never been alive.
