Tropical Wilds said:

View attachment 370262

I’m coming at you with your own nonsense. I can’t take you seriously when you cite a baloney person but then bleat that you don’t care about science when I quote ACTUAL science and medical definitions.

This all started because when people talked about drag queens in libraries you said with your outside voice that you don’t like them because they make you think about their sexual behaviors. Maybe stop thinking about their sex lives if it bothers you so much. Problem solved.

Don’t like drag queens? Don’t go see one.
Don’t like drag story hour? Read at home.
Don’t enjoy imagining a sex life you think is deviant (despite it meeting no definition of deviancy outside of the one you invented)? Think about something else.
Don’t want to be in a LGBTQA+ relationship? Don’t enter into one.

Literally all of these dramas you’re so wrapped up in are self-inflicted and are easily solved if you monitor yourself with the zeal you want to monitor others.

And don’t think I don’t see you not wanting to state that sexual assault is a sexual deviancy. As far as I’m concerned you pair that with your thoughts about women voting and marriage, it just means your worldview is so far outside of the norm that it’s impossible to take you or your viewpoints seriously. You just choose the most outlandish hill and decide that’s the weird hill you’re going to die on today, and off you go.

Click to expand...

Okay. Sure. Just know that according to the left, it is only sexual deviance until the left normalize and legalize it.

RDKirk said:

The first important difference is that one is backed by legislation and one is not.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but being backed by legislation doesn't necessarily mean it's morally right, or effective.

RDKirk said:

The second important difference is that one is based very specifically on Marxist Critical Theory and one is not, which absolutely changes their intended outcomes.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

ThatRobGuy said:

It means that when a tragedy of some sort happens, partisan actors will attribute blame to something, in order to advance a policy they'd already been wanting to advance anyway, using the tragedy as justification for it.

Click to expand...

OK, yes. I agree. Although you originally said 'attributing fault', which I think is quite reasonable. If some act or policy has a negative impact then you want to find out who is responsible. Whose fault it was. And you'd need some evidence for your conclusion. But blame...well, yes - there's a lot of that being thrown about based simply on opinion. And using a tragedy as the basis for it is not a good look. Whichever side of the political divide is doing it.

Bradskii said:

I'm aware of the full context of what he originally said. I've read the whole conversation. The video clip was him trying to double down on that. Effectively saying that an airline would employ a less qualified person, a less able pilot purely on the basis of their colour.

That is abject nonsense and we all know that.

What DEI does in this case is to give more people the opportunity to qualify. It increases the number of people who try to become pilots. And basic common sense will tell you that that will raise standards. Any given airline is going to take the best of any given group.

Click to expand...

That's what Affirmative Action would do. Under Affirmative Action the black pilot would actually have to qualify at least to the standards of white pilots...if not a bit more, because "White Privilege" is actually a thing, and particularly was when that black male pilot started his journey.

DEI would do more and differently for a more specific outcome. DEI would require standards to be "adjusted" to make sure of a positive outcome. But DEI hasn't actually done much for blacks in general and not for black men in particular, so the odds that DEI gained his position are zero to none.

Statistics show that black people in general and black men in particular have been less benefited by DEI policies than any other group...less even than white men.

Suppression of sexual desire is not the same as change in sexual orientation. And being dishonest with yourself isn't really a virtue.

How he chooses to live is private life is his business, but it's wrong to weaponize these kinds of personal experiences against gay people. Deciding to live a celibate life is not the same thing as a genuine change in sexual orientation.

Richard T said:

I am not worried about the questions but I would worry about other ongoing changes not yet announced. Seems rather vague on the goals, except it seems to prefer maga immigrants because otherwise, what values are to talking about?

Also, what is "fully assimilated." I would argue that most in Congress are not fully assimilated. Most likely don't know the price of a gallon of milk. or what it means to live paycheck to paycheck, or how hard it is for some to access medical care.
Additionally I would argue that state or even city assimilation is the best one can hope for. Take dance as an example of assimulation. In Texas it is the two-step, in North Carolina clogging and in New York ballroom? I can't even say for NY because I obviously am not USA assimilated.

I have to say also that I think this somewhat violates the spirit of the Constitution too from this statement, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". The term "sacred" as an adjective for citizenship implies as it pertains to God. Maga too is about imposing certain cultural ideas and values on all of America. Dig deep and you will find that such ideas are not always conservative, and the method, tone and use of money lacking in traditional Christian values.

Click to expand...

Assimilation is becoming a part of the culture. No more,; no less. Assimilation was once the goals of immigrants, the idea of becoming an American. Assimilation has been treated as a dirty thing for decades now, but is necessary if you are a part of society. It's a sense of "Whatever we were before, we are Americans now."

As to religious test because of the word "sacred," I'll simply point out that the Democrats have used abortion on demand as a political test for decades, with a fervor usually found among religious faithful for the tenets of their religion. Do we call that a religious test, too?

(This post is going to be deleted, isn't it?)

rebornfree said:

But not everyone is an adult. I think that the shooter was probably only just out of adolescence, and others on college campuses much the same.

Click to expand...

My point was that "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" was something my generation was taught as children, and we were expected to carry that idea throughout adulthood.

Aldebaran said:

He's a man who has accepted that he's a man, married to a woman who has accepted that she's a woman. Nothing deviant there.

Click to expand...

He called his daughter a lewd comment, he talked about how he’s had threesomes, and has had numerous affairs, including on his current wife (or they’re in an open relationship). None of that is mainstream. Stormy Daniels shared some interesting proclivities, too. Then, of course, there’s the whole being found liable for sexual assault thing… Most people would call that deviant.

Aldebaran said:

Contrast that to Tyler Robinson, a murderer who has sex with another man who believes he's a woman.

Click to expand...

Did they announce somewhere that he has sex with the roommate…? Odd thing to announce. Or did you just assume it…? Which, again, if that type of sex is offensive to you, why are you thinking about it and talking about it and why is your mind going there when you hear about them in a relationship? Like, I hear about a couple or I’m introduced to a couple, I don’t immediately hypothesize about their sex life. I could be looking at their kids, tangible products of their sex lives, and even then, I’m able to not imagine their sexual habits. I heard about this guy, I heard about his partner, and not once did I imagine their sexual habits. Not. One. Time. Until you brought it up.

But here you two are, the people most bothered by it, announcing to us all that you’ve been thinking about it and you are disgusted by it. That’s not normal, my guy. If you’re having involuntary thoughts of that nature… I mean… I don’t know. You have to work on that. You’re winding yourselves up about something that you have complete and total control of.

Chesterton said:

There's a little difference in approach, but substantially no difference.

Click to expand...

The first important difference is that one is backed by legislation and one is not.

The second important difference is that one is based very specifically on Marxist Critical Theory and one is not, which absolutely changes their intended outcomes.

As I think more about this, if they don't want to be called Nazis, they probably shouldn't be flying the Nazi flags at MAGA rallies or permitting others to do so.

JSRG said:

While the indefinite suspension was announced after Brendan Carr's threat, it happened so quickly afterwards I don't think ABC's announcement was a reaction to it. And Carr's statements were given on a podcast, not as part of an actual public announcement that would have gotten ABC's attention more quickly. And even if they were worried about his comments, there wasn't an immediacy to them that required them to take action mere hours afterwards.

Much more plausibly, the reason was the affiliates saying they wouldn't air Kimmel's show. That requires a more immediate response to deal with than Carr's statements, and (as far as I can tell) ABC would have fewer legal avenues to fight the issue with. I also strongly suspect that they were experiencing problems with advertisers pulling out of the show due to the controversy, again an issue they would have to deal with far more immediately than anything from the FCC. I feel like at most Carr's statements just accelerated what ABC was already considering or even already planned to do.

Click to expand...

There was reporting on the interview pretty much immediately, and the affiliates didn't announce that they were dropping the Tonight Show until after it aired. Note that Carr didn't just threaten ABC - he also threatened the affiliates:

And frankly, I
16:45
think that it's it's it's really sort of
16:46
past time that a lot of these licensed
16:48
broadcasters themselves push back on
16:52
Comcast and Disney and say, "Listen, we
16:53
are going to preempt. We are not going
16:54
to run Kimmel anymore until you
16:58
straighten this out because we we
17:00
licensed broadcaster are running the
17:02
possibility of fines or license
17:04
revocations from the FCC if we continue
17:06
to run content that ends up being a
17:08
pattern of news distortion."

Click to expand...

Now, maybe they communicated this to ABC beforehand - but also maybe the FCC communicated these threats to Sinclair and Nextar before the interview as well. However, even if it was a totally independent decision, this statement from the FCC still has a chilling effect on speech, because now everyone else is on notice. No matter how you look at it, what Carr said was, at minimum, extremely irresponsible, and aimed at stifling first amendment rights.

Job 33:6 said:

Login to view embedded media
It's difficult because the content of Charlie Kirk's podcast is just so controversial. Calling the civil rights act "a huge mistake", or calling MLKJ "awful" and "a bad person".

Was he a Martyr for Christianity? Or a Martyr for something else, who happened to also be Christian? For most of his career he never uttered a word about Jesus in his podcast.

Click to expand...

In the last 2-4 years or so, he did seem to be expressing more sincerity, even if his understanding of Christianity seemed quite shallow or warped much of the time. But the main beat, overwhelmingly, was always "Christian nationalism" and reactionary politics.

Ophiolite said:

The strongest element of your thesis, that shines through each post, is personal incredulity. It's not a good look and a weak foundation for an argument.

Click to expand...

How so. I have argued that even others on this thread recognise the signatures are modern. My pics earlier on were of those signatures I thought were hard to explain by the conventional story of the tools claimed and the experiments done.

Others say the signatures look modern and point to some sort of lathe. Certainly different from the wall paintings and experiements done. So much so they say they must be modern forgeries.

Thats all I have said. I have not made spectualtions that there is some sort of alien tech, or magic, or gods are doing this. Only that in the context of the OP these examples suggest knowledge is not what we think it is or has progressed compared to idea that it evolved simple to complex in todays material sciences.

But going into these specific examples seems a side tracked that has to happen as its one way of showing this. Well its the way demanded by the material sciences.

While its good to go into specific its still not dealing with the point that the orthodox way knowledge is understood (epistemics) excludes alternative knowledge and conflates this as conspiracy, imagination and pseudoscience ect.

Perhaps what your sense is that this thread has no formal basis and has changed in what is the OP. To some extent I agree and I have had to navigate this while trying to keep some basis as to what we are actually trying to find out or establish. Hans came up with a suggestion which I agreed with about breaking things down and setting a more formal debate.

I don't know I think its too late and I have opened another thread on this rabbit hole topic. But thats ok like I said so what. It is sort of establishing the OP point by looking at what people think is good evidence, seeing if people are denying obvious evidence, doing observations ourselves, looking at the logic and reasonableness of arguements ie it seems others see what I see but just dont agree its ancient.

Then we can keep going and see if its provedence is real. Then deal with that ect ect. I think the vase example is good and it is getting into the evidence and I think epistemics. If the findings hold up then it shows that at least some who dispute the findings may be doing so because of their preconscieved beliefs about what can and cannot be real.

I think we've all got the picture now. And yeah, the question was to see if you'd realize that your definition says that Donald Trump is a sexual deviant.

Aldebaran said:

He's a man who has accepted that he's a man, married to a woman who has accepted that she's a woman.

Click to expand...

I don't think we're talking about the same sexual deviant here.

Aldebaran said:

Contrast that to Tyler Robinson, a murderer who has sex with another man who believes he's a woman.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's weirder than anything that went on with Epstein and his friends. But less despicable.

Chesterton said:

Basic common sense will tell you that if someone wants to be a pilot, and has what it takes, there's no need for DEI.

Click to expand...

In which case then white guys are obviously better flyers than women or Asians or blacks because they are over represented. Which is quite frankly...nonsense. There are obviously reasons why women, Asians, Latinos, Blacks etc aren't taking flying lessons in the first place.

Here's a pilot talking about DEI in the airline industry: Airline Pilots & DEI: A Reality Check, As Unbiased As Possible

'...there’s United Aviate, which is a pilot career development academy. This is an academy that trains people with no flying experience to become airline pilots. It in no way lowers the requirements to get your certifications and become a pilot, and it also doesn’t guarantee you a job at the airline. Furthermore, this is only one of many pathways to becoming an airline pilot, as there are endless other ways to do so as well.

Yes, United Aviate uses DEI, and promotes how it hopes to have a certain percentage of minority cadets, who historically might not have had the opportunity to become pilots.

Now, some people will argue that “I want the best pilots, regardless of the color of their skin.” I hear you, and I completely agree. What that misses is that these academies aren’t hiring pilots, they’re accepting people who want to train to become pilots.

This is of course where we can get into a discussion about DEI, but I don’t think it’s relevant to the core of peoples’ concerns about the impact of DEI on the existing safety infrastructure in the industry.

The reason it’s not relevant is because these people still have to complete all certifications (with the highest requirements in the world) before they’re actually in the cockpit of an airliner. If we get to the point where white guys with 5,000 flight hours aren’t landing jobs at airlines while others are landing jobs with 1,500 flight hours, then I’ll be right there with you, in expressing my concerns, and calling that out. But it just doesn’t reflect the current reality.'

All that strikes me as blindingly obvious. And it's equally obvious that not everyone who can afford the cost of the lessons, medicals, number of hours, training, exams etc is going to be the next Chuck Yeager. But...there may well be an excellent flyer who gets the opportunity to train in academies like that provided by United Aviate.

But Kirk wanted to blow that dog whistle and imply that the guy with stripes on his arm sitting up the front of your red eye to L.A. might have got that position based on his colour. And I'm absolutely certain that he knew it wasn't the case. He really wasn't that stupid. Which leads to only one conclusion...

Oompa Loompa said:

Sex with another man who believes he is a woman while wearing an animal costume.

Click to expand...

No one's business but their own... unless only one is an adult. Sexual assault might not be the only deviation.

So although Holy God Almighty isn't established in any Country in entirety as He was in previous times, how can He benefit an individual who is within a more secular Country, per se?

How can He benefit an individual who is more trapped than willing within different circumstances of oppression?

But what is being deemed as oppressive if there are many who enjoy that circumstance?

The lack of common courtesy is a general but very simple example. Within micro and macro environments. Extending common courtesy is not the same as extending common respect; respectively, within their own unique environments. I might not be able to extend the common respect within unique environments but I can extend the common courtesy within that same unique environment in of which I might have not chosen to be within voluntarily and with knowledge.

But foundation laws can be a starting point of what the common courtesy might be if needing to get support from Law more than residents.


---



A person called police or assistance. There was a person near enough to be spat upon exercising his free right of speech. But at past midnight the homeless individual felt threatened enough to call the police for lawful support.

What danger is the free right of speech placing upon you, the police asked.

Well, the other responded, at past midnight to exercise free speech which is being received as threatening cannot be assumed to be needing to be received with common courtesy nor common respect, at maybe around noon time, if everyone is trying to not be bothered, the other replied.


Within that unique after midnight environment exercising free speech was not a common courtesy or common respect which could be common in another unique environment after midnight



So if local State and Federal judges are not learned within a polytheistic way(s)' of living, then that judge should not excuse religious freedom as an excuse for practicing their unique religion. It could very well be within a unique religion to sacrifice life; either of animal or human.

It was common for of age males to teach not of age males in early democracy.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

But to be true to democracy requires differentiating between forced law and common law.


www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic



A common or a unique?


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Honolulu_shootings

Chesterton said:

I used the words "common sense" because the person I was disagreeing with used those same words, so which one of us is wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing both.

Stopped_lurking said:

@Aldebaran did you plan on coming back to this? Otherwise I have another offensive one, , I am including a video for the context.

"Finland is very russian" - Charlie Kirk

Login to view embedded media
This is simply speaking not true and offensive. At the beginning of the video when Kirk realises that he is speaking with a german he starts singing "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles", this is not part of the german national anthem anymore (and singing that part is ill-advised). Let's put som spin on as well if you'd like.

Click to expand...

That was a very respectful and honest conversation where both of them agreed.on numerous points. I'm not sure what your beef here is. You seem to be upset over the Finland comment, but its not that b8g of deal.and you dont even know Kirk's argument and why he says that. He sure didn't explain it. And its certainly not a comment that is worth citing as a reason for killing him.

Belk said:

Basic common sense told us:

The earth is flat
The sun moves not the planet
Women are inferior to men
Blacks are not as sophisticated as whites

which is why up until recently "common sense" was a term of derision used to note the ideas of the uneducated. Because "common sense" is very often wrong.

Click to expand...

I used the words "common sense" because the person I was disagreeing with used those same words, so which one of us is wrong?

sjastro said:

Another point that should be made @stevevw is ignorant of simple trigonometry.
When he sees scans of the upper and lower vase and notes the perpendicularity is 0.003" and 0.005" respectively, his eyes light up and reaches the conclusion this is an example of extraordinary engineering.

View attachment 370251​

What he doesn't know is the magnitude of perpendicularity p depends on the measurement length L as explained in the diagram.

View attachment 370252
​

The perpendicularity p is the displacement of the vertical line perpendicular to the horizontal surface as is defined by the formula
p = L.tan(θ).
If L is small then p is small and since the perpendicularity has only been calculated for the top and bottom of the vase, it's not surprising the perpendicularity is small.
If it was possible to measure the perpendicularity over the length of the vase would result in a much larger value. The large cylindricity value as shown in my previous post prevents this as the axis is bent and the central axes at the top and bottom of the vase are not coaxial.

This leads to an interesting point if the individuals concerned are 'professionals' they would know calculating perpendicularity over short distances will artificially lower the value, or may be this was done deliberately as an act of deception.

Click to expand...

But they did not just calculate the ends but the entire vase and the concentricity averaged at around a human hair. The biggest deviation was at the most bulging part of the vase that was the furthest away from the center line B. It was 0.017.

But what needs to be understood is that this was the most deviation and to even achieve that means that every other point had to be within that over 10s of 1,000s of points in a 3D shape. Being its at the point of the furtherest away is amazing I think for a human made vase. If freehand this is astonishing I think.

durangodawood said:

Probably not a hedge. More likely just how they really think things should be organized.

Click to expand...

No, Rob is right. I worked for a criminal attorney who handled a big case involving the Bandidos MC. I learned a lot. They have written by-laws and such, but it's all intentionally and mysteriously decentralized.

Hentenza said:

Tell you what, I provided evidence for my opinion but you have not. Why don’t you try to convince me that your opinion is right.

Click to expand...

I'm not clear on what you want me to support. My statement that a senator's voting record can't show you that they're "far left"? Because that's not opinion - that's fact. Again, there are no bills that the senate has voted on recently that I would consider "far left". Therefore, no senator has ever voted for a far left bill, and so their voting record cannot show them to be far left. If you disagree, you'd have to point to some bills that qualify as far left - and convince me that they fit that description.

Maybe you can start by defining what you consider to be "far left" - if we're working from different definitions of the term, then we're just going to be talking past each other (that's why I was asking you which of the bills on the Clinton list you thought were "far left", FYI).