Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hillary Clintons comment that the Redskins should change their name and her view of Hamas as a humanitarian org suggest that you have a serious underestimation of the neoMarxists power in your party.
I tried to find where Hillary made the comment about Hamas, and only R-wing extremist sites came up. Funny. Would you happen to have a link, from a non extremist site?
Since some Native American's are offended by the name Redskins, I think the name should be changed. Do you want a team called the Washington Teabaggers, or is that offensive?
The humanitarian comments came from Pelosi actually. And she didn't actually say explicitly that she thought they were humanitarian, but that we should work more closely with Qatar, who say they are.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pBOg-kRPQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pBOg-kRPQ[/ame]
Hillary just defended Hamas using civilians as shields by saying, essentially, that they have no choice. That is just absurd.
Hillary Clinton one-on-one with Jorge Ramos: The full Fusion interview -- Fusion.
Incidentally, Pelosi, in her interview, wouldn't say that Hamas was using civilians as shields. She would only say that they were rumored to be doing so.
We put limits on the reactions we allow ourselves to the words and actions of others. If I say, "baseball is the worst sport on earth," and you, as a staunch fan of baseball, are angered by those words, are you then justified in killing me? No. To say that we hear words that trigger a chemical reaction that causes anger, and that whatever may happen afterwards is simply the fault of the speaker, is absurd. What happens afterwards is the choice of the listener. It is not predetermined or predestined.
The mindset you seem to be ascribing to him is that which is similar to the owner of a stable of horses. If that was not the mindset you were ascribing to him, why use a phrasing that could give no other impression? I'm also interested to know by which means you determined what his mindset was. Did he make a statement of such?
Yes I could very well be justified in killing you. Justification is a subjective thing based on what I (not you the victim) assume is reasonable. It may or may not be the fault of the speaker in your eyes but the speakers actions did indeed cause it. The affect was that you were killed. If you want to make your argument stronger I would suggest you stop using subjective words like justification and fault. You can do better.
That was exactly the mindset I was ascribing to him. I just never said he owned the player like you claimed I meant without clarifying that with me. He paid a hefty price in order to wield a sense of power over these athletes and that made him feel good.
Yes he made several statements and displayed actions that showed his inclination towards the mindset of a stable owner. Did you not read the transcripts of his comments?
V: Do you know that you have a whole team that's black, that plays for you?
DS: You just, do I know? I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I haveWho makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?
Let's look at it as objectively as possible then.
Person A says some words.
Person B is not harmed physically by the words.
Person B is harmed non-physically by the words to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him.
Person B kills Person A.
Person A is harmed physically by the killing to the greatest extent possible; He is dead.
Person A is harmed non-physically by the killing to the greatest extent possible; He is dead.
Speaking completely objectively, are the two actions proportional? They certainly did not have proportional effects. By no objective measure can the actions be seen as proportional.
Let's try another scenario:
Person C says some words.
Person D is not harmed physically by the words.
Person D is harmed non-physically by the words to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him.
Person D acts to harm Person C's career.
Person C is harmed physically by the action; his career directly affects his physical well being because it allows him to provide for his physical needs. He may or may not die as a result.
Person C is harmed non-physically by the action to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him directly.
By objective measure, are these two actions proportional?
Point conceded that the comments above could convey the same impression you intended.
I tried to find where Hillary made the comment about Hamas, and only R-wing extremist sites came up. Funny. Would you happen to have a link, from a non extremist site?
Since some Native American's are offended by the name Redskins, I think the name should be changed. Do you want a team called the Washington Teabaggers, or is that offensive?
The humanitarian comments came from Pelosi actually. And she didn't actually say explicitly that she thought they were humanitarian, but that we should work more closely with Qatar, who say they are.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pBOg-kRPQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pBOg-kRPQ[/ame]
Hillary just defended Hamas using civilians as shields by saying, essentially, that they have no choice. That is just absurd.
Hillary Clinton one-on-one with Jorge Ramos: The full Fusion interview -- Fusion.
Incidentally, Pelosi, in her interview, wouldn't say that Hamas was using civilians as shields. She would only say that they were rumored to be doing so.
Okay, so you're saying that Jimbowie doesn't know shit, and Hillary never said that.
Thank you!
Now we can get back to the topic.
Rich man doesn't get his way even though he's throwing fits, and he's leaving a horrible legacy, and won't get to take any of that money with him.
At the end of the day, Sterling is still the biggest loser.
Yes I could very well be justified in killing you. Justification is a subjective thing based on what I (not you the victim) assume is reasonable. It may or may not be the fault of the speaker in your eyes but the speakers actions did indeed cause it. The affect was that you were killed. If you want to make your argument stronger I would suggest you stop using subjective words like justification and fault. You can do better.
That was exactly the mindset I was ascribing to him. I just never said he owned the player like you claimed I meant without clarifying that with me. He paid a hefty price in order to wield a sense of power over these athletes and that made him feel good.
Yes he made several statements and displayed actions that showed his inclination towards the mindset of a stable owner. Did you not read the transcripts of his comments?
Let's look at it as objectively as possible then.
Person A says some words.
Person B is not harmed physically by the words.
Person B is harmed non-physically by the words to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him.
Person B kills Person A.
Person A is harmed physically by the killing to the greatest extent possible; He is dead.
Person A is harmed non-physically by the killing to the greatest extent possible; He is dead.
Speaking completely objectively, are the two actions proportional? They certainly did not have proportional effects. By no objective measure can the actions be seen as proportional.
Let's try another scenario:
Person C says some words.
Person D is not harmed physically by the words.
Person D is harmed non-physically by the words to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him.
Person D acts to harm Person C's career.
Person C is harmed physically by the action; his career directly affects his physical well being because it allows him to provide for his physical needs. He may or may not die as a result.
Person C is harmed non-physically by the action to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him directly.
By objective measure, are these two actions proportional?
Point conceded that the comments above could convey the same impression you intended.
You failed on the second line. What do you mean by person B or D is not harmed physically?
What does "proportional" have to do with cause and effect. Again proportional is a subjective term. The amount of skin person B may want to take from person A may never be enough for the harm person A caused person B.
Let's look at it as objectively as possible then.
Person A says some words.
Person B is not harmed physically by the words.
Person B is harmed non-physically by the words to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him.
Person B kills Person A.
Person A is harmed physically by the killing to the greatest extent possible; He is dead.
Person A is harmed non-physically by the killing to the greatest extent possible; He is dead.
Speaking completely objectively, are the two actions proportional? They certainly did not have proportional effects. By no objective measure can the actions be seen as proportional.
Let's try another scenario:
Person C says some words.
Person D is not harmed physically by the words.
Person D is harmed non-physically by the words to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him.
Person D acts to harm Person C's career.
Person C is harmed physically by the action; his career directly affects his physical well being because it allows him to provide for his physical needs. He may or may not die as a result.
Person C is harmed non-physically by the action to an unquantifiable extent but not to the greatest extent possible; it will not kill him directly.
By objective measure, are these two actions proportional?
Point conceded that the comments above could convey the same impression you intended.
You failed on the second line. What do you mean by person B or D is not harmed physically?
What does "proportional" have to do with cause and effect. Again proportional is a subjective term. The amount of skin person B may want to take from person A may never be enough for the harm person A caused person B.
Words alone do not cause physical harm. If you can show that words alone cause physical harm, please do so.
Proportional: in proportion: having the correct relationship of size, quantity, or degree to something else, or remaining in the same relationship when things change.
Proportionality can be objectively measured using objective standards of measure. "Some harm but not the greatest harm possible," for example, is less than "the greatest harm possible." That is completely objective.
Now you are introducing subjectivity. What person B may want does not affect the objective measure of the proportionality of the actions.
You failed on the second line. What do you mean by person B or D is not harmed physically?
What does "proportional" have to do with cause and effect. Again proportional is a subjective term. The amount of skin person B may want to take from person A may never be enough for the harm person A caused person B.
Words alone do not cause physical harm. If you can show that words alone cause physical harm, please do so.
Proportional: in proportion: having the correct relationship of size, quantity, or degree to something else, or remaining in the same relationship when things change.
Proportionality can be objectively measured using objective standards of measure. "Some harm but not the greatest harm possible," for example, is less than "the greatest harm possible." That is completely objective.
Now you are introducing subjectivity. What person B may want does not affect the objective measure of the proportionality of the actions.
You must have missed the part where I told you words cause emotions which produce chemicals. Some of those chemicals released due to anger, depression, anxiety, etc will harm you and cause pain.
Signs and Symptoms of Anger-Related Issues ? Causes and Effects
Proportionality can be objectively measured only when two parties agree on the standards. If person A thinks person B should die for stepping on his shoes and person B thinks the exact opposite proportionality goes out the window. You dont dictate the standards.
Long term or short term makes no difference. Its still harming you. Yes they are the result of hearing the words. I just explained to you how the brain releases chemicals every time you hear things.
Yes there is a need for agreement on objective measurements. I just provided you a scenario in the prior post expressing that. You cant dictate whats objective to someone that doesn't agree with you.
Your tired argument of no harm coming to the person is puerile at this point. Get a new argument. I just told you harm does come to the person. I also told you that your standard of what is proportional may not be the same one I have. The sooner you understand that the sooner you will be able to communicate more effectively.
Long term or short term makes no difference. Its still harming you. Yes they are the result of hearing the words. I just explained to you how the brain releases chemicals every time you hear things.
Yes there is a need for agreement on objective measurements. I just provided you a scenario in the prior post expressing that. You cant dictate whats objective to someone that doesn't agree with you.
Your tired argument of no harm coming to the person is puerile at this point. Get a new argument. I just told you harm does come to the person. I also told you that your standard of what is proportional may not be the same one I have. The sooner you understand that the sooner you will be able to communicate more effectively.
There is no physical harm caused by words. Words can cause anger. Anger management issues can cause physical harm. Without the anger management issue the words would cause no physical harm. Words do not cause the harm. The anger management issue causes the harm.
Objectivity is, by definition, independent of the interpretation of the parties involved. You cannot have objective measurements that are dependent on the interpretation of the parties involved. That is the definition of subjective.
You are not going to admit you are wrong. I see no point in continuing this discussion.
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Long term or short term makes no difference. Its still harming you. Yes they are the result of hearing the words. I just explained to you how the brain releases chemicals every time you hear things.
Yes there is a need for agreement on objective measurements. I just provided you a scenario in the prior post expressing that. You cant dictate whats objective to someone that doesn't agree with you.
Your tired argument of no harm coming to the person is puerile at this point. Get a new argument. I just told you harm does come to the person. I also told you that your standard of what is proportional may not be the same one I have. The sooner you understand that the sooner you will be able to communicate more effectively.
There is no physical harm caused by words. Words can cause anger. Anger management issues can cause physical harm. Without the anger management issue the words would cause no physical harm. Words do not cause the harm. The anger management issue causes the harm.
Objectivity is, by definition, independent of the interpretation of the parties involved. You cannot have objective measurements that are dependent on the interpretation of the parties involved. That is the definition of subjective.
You are not going to admit you are wrong. I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Ahh...I see your problem now. You think you dictate what constitutes the cause of the harm. You dont. That is just a further example of your simplistic level of understanding. If the words did not cause the emotion there would be no harm. Since the words did cause the emotion then it also caused the harm.
Sorry but objectivity by definition requires a consensus.
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Since we are the sum of our experiences and personal feelings its impossible to be objective unless you agree on a standard.
Case 1. I can say the sky is light blue and you could say it was a bluish white. In order to be objective we would need to agree on what blue was and work from there using our powers of persuasion to reach an agreement.
Case 2. I can say Gabriel Union is prettier than Zooey Deschanel. Again we would need to agree on standards of beauty in order to be objective.
There is no physical harm caused by words. Words can cause anger. Anger management issues can cause physical harm. Without the anger management issue the words would cause no physical harm. Words do not cause the harm. The anger management issue causes the harm.
Objectivity is, by definition, independent of the interpretation of the parties involved. You cannot have objective measurements that are dependent on the interpretation of the parties involved. That is the definition of subjective.
You are not going to admit you are wrong. I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Ahh...I see your problem now. You think you dictate what constitutes the cause of the harm. You dont. That is just a further example of your simplistic level of understanding. If the words did not cause the emotion there would be no harm. Since the words did cause the emotion then it also caused the harm.
Sorry but objectivity by definition requires a consensus.
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Since we are the sum of our experiences and personal feelings its impossible to be objective unless you agree on a standard.
Case 1. I can say the sky is light blue and you could say it was a bluish white. In order to be objective we would need to agree on what blue was and work from there using our powers of persuasion to reach an agreement.
Case 2. I can say Gabriel Union is prettier than Zooey Deschanel. Again we would need to agree on standards of beauty in order to be objective.
You're stretching to try to justify killing someone based on nothing but words. You argument is essentially this:
IF there was a pre-existing psychological problem, and IF that problem had existed for long enough to begin to stress the body, words could cause physical harm.
That's a reach.
You choose two subjective examples to try and explain objectivity? Try again.
The actual pigmentation of the sky is independent of the impressions of the two observers. It can be quantified on an RGB or CMYK color metric that is entirely objective. No matter what the thoughts or feelings of the observer the RGB or CMYK values will not change. The RGB and CMYK values exist separate from our interpretation or our decision to use them. What we call the color and our impressions of it are subjective.
Beauty is completely subjective and cannot be objectively quantified. You can measure height, weight, facial ratios, skin tone, eye and hair pigmentation, etc. You cannot objectify the subjective appreciation of any of those values though.
Ahh...I see your problem now. You think you dictate what constitutes the cause of the harm. You dont. That is just a further example of your simplistic level of understanding. If the words did not cause the emotion there would be no harm. Since the words did cause the emotion then it also caused the harm.
Sorry but objectivity by definition requires a consensus.
Since we are the sum of our experiences and personal feelings its impossible to be objective unless you agree on a standard.
Case 1. I can say the sky is light blue and you could say it was a bluish white. In order to be objective we would need to agree on what blue was and work from there using our powers of persuasion to reach an agreement.
Case 2. I can say Gabriel Union is prettier than Zooey Deschanel. Again we would need to agree on standards of beauty in order to be objective.
You're stretching to try to justify killing someone based on nothing but words. You argument is essentially this:
IF there was a pre-existing psychological problem, and IF that problem had existed for long enough to begin to stress the body, words could cause physical harm.
That's a reach.
You choose two subjective examples to try and explain objectivity? Try again.
The actual pigmentation of the sky is independent of the impressions of the two observers. It can be quantified on an RGB or CMYK color metric that is entirely objective. No matter what the thoughts or feelings of the observer the RGB or CMYK values will not change. The RGB and CMYK values exist separate from our interpretation or our decision to use them. What we call the color and our impressions of it are subjective.
Beauty is completely subjective and cannot be objectively quantified. You can measure height, weight, facial ratios, skin tone, eye and hair pigmentation, etc. You cannot objectify the subjective appreciation of any of those values though.
There you go again with that subjective word justify.
You have shown your comprehension level is not up to par. That is not what my point is at all. My point is words cause reactions in the body that inflict harm/pain. Everyone but you seems to know that the chemicals released in your brain can cause issues. They have trained scientist that can tell you this if you dont want to take my word for it.
Everything is subjective including your contention that killing someone for stepping on your shoes is going overboard. To some people that is a very valid concept regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Objectivity can only be gained by consensus and must be agreed upon on for a standard to be set.
Take for instance the math equation 1+1. Thats an exact science and objectively if we agree on our usual standards the answer would be 2. However, If I don't agree with your standards then I would be just as correct by saying it equals 3 regardless of how upsetting that would be to you.
You're stretching to try to justify killing someone based on nothing but words. You argument is essentially this:
IF there was a pre-existing psychological problem, and IF that problem had existed for long enough to begin to stress the body, words could cause physical harm.
That's a reach.
You choose two subjective examples to try and explain objectivity? Try again.
The actual pigmentation of the sky is independent of the impressions of the two observers. It can be quantified on an RGB or CMYK color metric that is entirely objective. No matter what the thoughts or feelings of the observer the RGB or CMYK values will not change. The RGB and CMYK values exist separate from our interpretation or our decision to use them. What we call the color and our impressions of it are subjective.
Beauty is completely subjective and cannot be objectively quantified. You can measure height, weight, facial ratios, skin tone, eye and hair pigmentation, etc. You cannot objectify the subjective appreciation of any of those values though.
There you go again with that subjective word justify.
You have shown your comprehension level is not up to par. That is not what my point is at all. My point is words cause reactions in the body that inflict harm/pain. Everyone but you seems to know that the chemicals released in your brain can cause issues. They have trained scientist that can tell you this if you dont want to take my word for it.
Everything is subjective including your contention that killing someone for stepping on your shoes is going overboard. To some people that is a very valid concept regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Objectivity can only be gained by consensus and must be agreed upon on for a standard to be set.
Take for instance the math equation 1+1. Thats an exact science and objectively if we agree on our usual standards the answer would be 2. However, If I don't agree with your standards then I would be just as correct by saying it equals 3 regardless of how upsetting that would be to you.
So given no pre-existing condidtion and in every human being, words that cause the same amount of chemicals to be released into the brain will always cause physical harm to the subject? No. The only way that words could possibly lead to physical harm is in the relatively rare case of a pre-existing physical or psychological problem.
The fact that you think math is subject to interpretation just goes to show that you do not understand the concept at all. Given no strange quantum phenomena, if you take the quantity that we call 1 and add the quantity that we call 1 you will get the quantity that we call 2. What we call the quantities could not matter less. I could call 1 'bork' and 2 'sevit' and bork + bork would equal sevit. The actuality is independent from our interpretation. If you have an orange, and you pick up another orange, do you now have three oranges? And does saying or imagining that you have three oranges change the fact that you actually only have two? Come on!
You failed on the second line. What do you mean by person B or D is not harmed physically?
What does "proportional" have to do with cause and effect. Again proportional is a subjective term. The amount of skin person B may want to take from person A may never be enough for the harm person A caused person B.
Words alone do not cause physical harm. If you can show that words alone cause physical harm, please do so.
Proportional: in proportion: having the correct relationship of size, quantity, or degree to something else, or remaining in the same relationship when things change.
Proportionality can be objectively measured using objective standards of measure. "Some harm but not the greatest harm possible," for example, is less than "the greatest harm possible." That is completely objective.
Now you are introducing subjectivity. What person B may want does not affect the objective measure of the proportionality of the actions.
You must have missed the part where I told you words cause emotions which produce chemicals. Some of those chemicals released due to anger, depression, anxiety, etc will harm you and cause pain.
Signs and Symptoms of Anger-Related Issues ? Causes and Effects
Proportionality can be objectively measured only when two parties agree on the standards. If person A thinks person B should die for stepping on his shoes and person B thinks the exact opposite proportionality goes out the window. You dont dictate the standards.
There you go again with that subjective word justify.
You have shown your comprehension level is not up to par. That is not what my point is at all. My point is words cause reactions in the body that inflict harm/pain. Everyone but you seems to know that the chemicals released in your brain can cause issues. They have trained scientist that can tell you this if you dont want to take my word for it.
Everything is subjective including your contention that killing someone for stepping on your shoes is going overboard. To some people that is a very valid concept regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Objectivity can only be gained by consensus and must be agreed upon on for a standard to be set.
Take for instance the math equation 1+1. Thats an exact science and objectively if we agree on our usual standards the answer would be 2. However, If I don't agree with your standards then I would be just as correct by saying it equals 3 regardless of how upsetting that would be to you.
So given no pre-existing condidtion and in every human being, words that cause the same amount of chemicals to be released into the brain will always cause physical harm to the subject? No. The only way that words could possibly lead to physical harm is in the relatively rare case of a pre-existing physical or psychological problem.
The fact that you think math is subject to interpretation just goes to show that you do not understand the concept at all. Given no strange quantum phenomena, if you take the quantity that we call 1 and add the quantity that we call 1 you will get the quantity that we call 2. What we call the quantities could not matter less. I could call 1 'bork' and 2 'sevit' and bork + bork would equal sevit. The actuality is independent from our interpretation. If you have an orange, and you pick up another orange, do you now have three oranges? And does saying or imagining that you have three oranges change the fact that you actually only have two? Come on!
Wrong. Words do cause the release of chemicals in the brain that can harm you period. You would have to be a sociopath for that not to happen most likely.
Can? As in do not always? What circumstances allow them to cause harm?
Did you notice how even you agree we must have a consensus on what "we call" it? I can show you 2 examples that prove you wrong.
I specifically showed that it does not matter what we call it. The actuality of it is independent from our interpretation which is the definition of objective.
1+ 1 can equal 1
If i combine 2 drops of liquid together it will create 1 larger drop.
That is not the mathematical equivelant of 1 + 1 = 1. It is more like the mathematical equivelant of 1x + 1x = 1y because the 1 that is the result is not equal to the 1's that were added together to create it. In every instance, again barring strange quantum phenomena, 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
1+1 can equal 3
If i combine my mind and a second persons mind we can create a 3rd more powerful mind.
Science fiction? In reality you cannot combine minds.
Taking your example I can make 2 oranges equal anything I want to. I can cut them in pieces and say I have eight. Its all subjective.
You would not have 8 oranges though. You would have 8 pieces of oranges none of which were equal to the oranges they had originally been. You saying you had 8 oranges would not change the reality that you did not have 8 oranges. The reality is that you would have 2 oranges cut into 8 pieces. You can twist and interpret reality all you want, you can say anything you want about reality, but you cannot change reality. What is is.
You saying "come on" is just another way of saying "you have to agree because that the standard I use."
My saying, "come on," was a plea for you to stop trying to twist reality to fit your warped interpretation.
So given no pre-existing condidtion and in every human being, words that cause the same amount of chemicals to be released into the brain will always cause physical harm to the subject? No. The only way that words could possibly lead to physical harm is in the relatively rare case of a pre-existing physical or psychological problem.
The fact that you think math is subject to interpretation just goes to show that you do not understand the concept at all. Given no strange quantum phenomena, if you take the quantity that we call 1 and add the quantity that we call 1 you will get the quantity that we call 2. What we call the quantities could not matter less. I could call 1 'bork' and 2 'sevit' and bork + bork would equal sevit. The actuality is independent from our interpretation. If you have an orange, and you pick up another orange, do you now have three oranges? And does saying or imagining that you have three oranges change the fact that you actually only have two? Come on!
Can? As in do not always? What circumstances allow them to cause harm?
I specifically showed that it does not matter what we call it. The actuality of it is independent from our interpretation which is the definition of objective.
That is not the mathematical equivelant of 1 + 1 = 1. It is more like the mathematical equivelant of 1x + 1x = 1y because the 1 that is the result is not equal to the 1's that were added together to create it. In every instance, again barring strange quantum phenomena, 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
Science fiction? In reality you cannot combine minds.
You would not have 8 oranges though. You would have 8 pieces of oranges none of which were equal to the oranges they had originally been. You saying you had 8 oranges would not change the reality that you did not have 8 oranges. The reality is that you would have 2 oranges cut into 8 pieces. You can twist and interpret reality all you want, you can say anything you want about reality, but you cannot change reality. What is is.
You saying "come on" is just another way of saying "you have to agree because that the standard I use."
My saying, "come on," was a plea for you to stop trying to twist reality to fit your warped interpretation.
Why does that matter? All you need to know is that it happens. Attempting to divert and deflect wont change that.
You didnt show anything other than you have a standard you think everyone should agree with.
Yes it is the mathematical equivalent despite what you think. I took 2 physical entities added them together and came out with 1 entity.
No its not science fiction. Its reality. Men much smarter than you can attest to that fact.
Yes I could have eight oranges. You don't determine what an orange consists of for me. The reality is an orange can be whatever I define it to be. If its cut in 4 pieces I dont call it something else. I still call each piece an orange.
You should stop begging and open your mind to the fact you dont know what you are talking about. All you are doing is pushing your reality which you want me to believe in.
And you are an idiot.
lol, easy to state but harder to demonstrate.
The New American Left is dominated by historians like Zinn, political extremists groups like radical environmentalists, and activists like Ayers.
There may be some extremists in the Democratic party but they don't control the party like the extremists (Tea Party) controls the Republican party. The Republicans (like Boehner) and others, have been caving in to the demands of extremists, like Ted Cruz and then suffering the consequences for it.
True there may be some, but the Democratic party is not being run by these extremist liberals, and will not acquiesce to their demands.Todays liberals are not the liberals of Truman or JFK, not at all.
Can? As in do not always? What circumstances allow them to cause harm?
I specifically showed that it does not matter what we call it. The actuality of it is independent from our interpretation which is the definition of objective.
That is not the mathematical equivelant of 1 + 1 = 1. It is more like the mathematical equivelant of 1x + 1x = 1y because the 1 that is the result is not equal to the 1's that were added together to create it. In every instance, again barring strange quantum phenomena, 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
Science fiction? In reality you cannot combine minds.
You would not have 8 oranges though. You would have 8 pieces of oranges none of which were equal to the oranges they had originally been. You saying you had 8 oranges would not change the reality that you did not have 8 oranges. The reality is that you would have 2 oranges cut into 8 pieces. You can twist and interpret reality all you want, you can say anything you want about reality, but you cannot change reality. What is is.
My saying, "come on," was a plea for you to stop trying to twist reality to fit your warped interpretation.
Why does that matter? All you need to know is that it happens. Attempting to divert and deflect wont change that.
I'm not deflecting. You are.
You didnt show anything other than you have a standard you think everyone should agree with.
Incorrect.
Yes it is the mathematical equivalent despite what you think. I took 2 physical entities added them together and came out with 1 entity.
The final "entity" was equal to neither of the original entities. 1x + 1x = 1y not 1 + 1 = 1
No its not science fiction. Its reality. Men much smarter than you can attest to that fact.
Prove it or explain it, because the vulcan mind meld does not exist in any reality I know of.
Yes I could have eight oranges. You don't determine what an orange consists of for me. The reality is an orange can be whatever I define it to be. If its cut in 4 pieces I dont call it something else. I still call each piece an orange.
Reality is not subject to your definition of it. Whatever you call an orange or it's pieces is irrelevant. The thing that actually is an orange does not become 8 of itself by being cut up. It becomes parts of itself. Again, your interpretation of reality cannot change reality. Call yourself superman, you still can't fly.
You should stop begging and open your mind to the fact you dont know what you are talking about. All you are doing is pushing your reality which you want me to believe in.
I have to recommend that you exercise severe caution. You are so disconnected from reality that I worry you may do yourself harm. Actually given the positions that you have promoted here I should suggest you seek psychiatric care. You may be a real danger to yourself and others. I'm not trying to attack you. I'm sincerely worried for you.
I'm not deflecting. You are.
Incorrect.
The final "entity" was equal to neither of the original entities. 1x + 1x = 1y not 1 + 1 = 1
Prove it or explain it, because the vulcan mind meld does not exist in any reality I know of.
Reality is not subject to your definition of it. Whatever you call an orange or it's pieces is irrelevant. The thing that actually is an orange does not become 8 of itself by being cut up. It becomes parts of itself. Again, your interpretation of reality cannot change reality. Call yourself superman, you still can't fly.
You should stop begging and open your mind to the fact you dont know what you are talking about. All you are doing is pushing your reality which you want me to believe in.
I have to recommend that you exercise severe caution. You are so disconnected from reality that I worry you may do yourself harm. Actually given the positions that you have promoted here I should suggest you seek psychiatric care. You may be a real danger to yourself and others. I'm not trying to attack you. I'm sincerely worried for you.
You tried you best but unfortunately you have trouble with reality. I was once like you. However, I had enough sense to learn. Will you do that or just keep whining about someone doing something wrong and being held accountable for it?
I'm not deflecting. You are.
Incorrect.
The final "entity" was equal to neither of the original entities. 1x + 1x = 1y not 1 + 1 = 1
Prove it or explain it, because the vulcan mind meld does not exist in any reality I know of.
Reality is not subject to your definition of it. Whatever you call an orange or it's pieces is irrelevant. The thing that actually is an orange does not become 8 of itself by being cut up. It becomes parts of itself. Again, your interpretation of reality cannot change reality. Call yourself superman, you still can't fly.
I have to recommend that you exercise severe caution. You are so disconnected from reality that I worry you may do yourself harm. Actually given the positions that you have promoted here I should suggest you seek psychiatric care. You may be a real danger to yourself and others. I'm not trying to attack you. I'm sincerely worried for you.
You tried you best but unfortunately you have trouble with reality. I was once like you. However, I had enough sense to learn. Will you do that or just keep whining about someone doing something wrong and being held accountable for it?
