-->
@ebuc
Time and Space,
So all event and duration,
And that which has come to be,
Quantum.
ebuCCube.
Trust THE Science.
Posts
Total:
80
-->
@coal
"I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.
Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise."
-Buckley
“I love the uneducated.”
- Donald Trump
So true.
-->
@Reece101
A far better philosophy than scorning the uneducated. It's no wonder why the uneducated would revolt against their elite patronizing masters.
Deplorables need representation too.
Being uneducated shouldn’t be treated as a virtue. It doesn’t take an education to realise it’s bad for society.
Buckley and Trump are both raging narcissists. Do some basic logic.
-->
@oromagi
@Bones
Bones..."Wait so what's the definition of a women? "..
.." About one in 5,000 women is born without a uterus.
....Women with M¸llerian agenesis have ovaries and they go through
puberty in the normal way, outwardly. They develop breasts, hair under
their arms, they roll their eyes, and they get curvy like every other
girl. They just don't have periods and this is what usually brings them
to the doctor. When I see an adolescent of about 14 or 15 that developed
breasts and pubic hair at about the right age of 12 but still hasn't
started their period, I worry that they might not have a uterus or might
have a blockage that keeps their menstrual blood from coming out.
.....Some girls have a blockage at the level of the hymen, just at the
opening of the vagina. That's an easy thing to fix, just open up the
passageway, but some girls don't have a passage.
...No vagina, no cervix,
no uterus.
....Now, this is a very difficult diagnosis for young women to
hear and even harder for her mother who brings her in for this
evaluation. Moms often feel as if there was something that they did when
they were pregnant that interfered with their baby's development. But
there's nothing that they did to cause this.
The diagnosis for the young teens can be traumatic, but young teens
aren't usually thinking about having a baby and not having a period can
be perfectly fine for them.
.....They aren't usually thinking about sex yet
so the fact that they don't have a vagina isn't right up front on their
radar screen. "....
Take note in the above, they are considered women { Xx } from the start, just with some syndromes.
Intersex hermaphrodites is another issue altogether.
Here is more from the above LINKed URL
..." Now, with uterine transplants, would this be the answer for a woman
born without a uterus? Well, we still have some work to do to find out
if these transplanted uteruses actually can carry a baby in a healthy
way. Is the blood flow normal? Will the baby be affected by the drugs
taken by the mom to prevent rejection of the uterus? Will the baby grow
well, be nourished well by the placenta? Will the labor go well?
We don't know these things yet and uterine transplantation will be much more complicated and expensive than gestational surrogacy, which provides a healthy environment for the growing fetus.
We don't know these things yet and uterine transplantation will be much more complicated and expensive than gestational surrogacy, which provides a healthy environment for the growing fetus.
-->
@zedvictor4
Time and Space
These are the cojoined only when considering occupied space Universe.
Observed time is what we have verified iva quantization in lab i.e. all known particles that compose atoms ergo trees, water, planets that are conscious of.
We have not quantised { observed } Gravity ( ) nor Dark Energy )(
.......space( * ) i ( * )space.....
* * = bilateral consciousness ergo time
i = ego/Meta-space
space = macro-infinite non-occupied and finite occupied
We exist as data bits of consciousness seeking truth --moral principles and purpose-- and exposing lies/falshoods ex Orange-Bad-Peoples ---immoral principles and purpose---.
..." The X chromosome contains 1,100 genes, or about 5% of the human genome.
Ross and team's findings show that females are far more variable than previously thought and, when it comes to genes, more complex than men.
"The X chromosome is definitely the most extraordinary in the human genome in terms of its inheritance pattern, its unique biology ... and in terms of its association with human disease," says Ross.
Chromosomes, which are found in the nucleus of every cell, contain genes that determine the characteristics of an individual. Women have two X chromosomes while men have an X and a Y, which gives them their male features.
The research shows the Y is an eroded version of the X chromosome with only a few genes.
The X chromosome is also bigger than the Y and
because females have two copies, one X chromosome is largely switched
off or inactivated.
But not all of the genes on the silenced chromosome are inactivated, which could explain some of the differences between men and women, says US researcher Dr Laura Carrel, of Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania, who also reports research on the X chromosome in the journal.
But not all of the genes on the silenced chromosome are inactivated, which could explain some of the differences between men and women, says US researcher Dr Laura Carrel, of Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania, who also reports research on the X chromosome in the journal.
The X inactivation ...[ this called the barr body tho they dont state it here...] also varies widely among women.
"The effects of these genes from the inactive X chromosome could
explain some of the differences between men and women that aren't
attributable to sex hormones," she says.
Disease links
The X chromosome has been linked to more than 300 human diseases.
Genetic mutations and diseases such as colour blindness, autism and haemophilia that are linked to the X chromosome tend to affect males because they do not have another X to compensate for the faults.
Disease links
The X chromosome has been linked to more than 300 human diseases.
Genetic mutations and diseases such as colour blindness, autism and haemophilia that are linked to the X chromosome tend to affect males because they do not have another X to compensate for the faults.
The X chromosome is also home to many genes linked to mental
retardation and to the largest gene, called DMD, in the human genome.
Mutations in DMD cause Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a disabling and
fatal disease in men.".....
It's been my experience that when one states, "Trust the Science," "the science" shouldn't be trusted. Apply consistent logical reasoning where it warrants, and trust won't be an issue.
-->
@coal
-->@oromagiINSURRECTION specifically means 'violent uprising against government'So you say. The January 6th committee would like to disagree.
- Let's recall I was correcting GP's call for INSURRECTION against the Democratic party. I argued that was the wrong verb since the Democratic Party is not a government. The correct verb would be something more like ATTACK or ASSAULT or PURGE.
- Wiktionary defines INSURRECTION as "The action of part or all of a national population violently rising up against the government or other authority; an instance of this; a revolt, an uprising; specifically, one that is at an initial stage or limited in nature. "
- The Encyclopedia Britannica specifically lists Jan 6th as an example of insurrection.
- INSURRECTION, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution, which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state, and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition, which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.
- In the United States, insurrection against the authority of the federal government is a crime under 18 U.S. Code §2383, which provides that:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
- Federal law also grants to the president of the United States the authority to employ the armed forces of the United States and nationalized state militias to put down an insurrection against a state government upon the request of the state’s legislature or governor (10 U.S. Code §251) and to suppress or prevent civil disturbances—“unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion[s]”—that, in the president’s judgment, have interfered or would interfere with the enforcement of federal laws in any state (§252) or have effectively deprived citizens of their rights under the U.S. Constitution (§253). These and other provisions of Chapter 13 of the U.S. Code, entitled “Insurrection,” originated in two pieces of legislation from the late 18th and early 19th centuries: an act of Congress (1795) that extended to the president Congress’s constitutional authority “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (Article I, §8) and the Insurrection Act (1807), which additionally authorized the president to deploy the armed forces of the United States in the same circumstances and for the same purpose. During the subsequent two centuries, the Insurrection Act was amended numerous times and invoked by presidents including Abraham Lincoln (to enable the use of federal troops to defeat the secession of Confederate states in the American Civil War), Dwight D. Eisenhower (to assist efforts to desegregate public schools in the South), and George H.W. Bush (to quell riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King). In 2020, in response to sometimes violent demonstrations against police brutality and anti-Black racism in several U.S. cities (see United States: The killing of George Floyd and nationwide racial injustice protests), Pres. Donald J. Trump threatened to use his authority under the Insurrection Act to unleash deadly force against lawbreaking protesters.
- Insurrections and other acts of violence against governments by their own citizens or subjects (some of which are not clearly distinguishable from revolutions, coups d’état, civil wars, or resistance to foreign rule) are commonplace in world history. Among many historically significant insurrections of the 20th and 21st centuries are the March on Rome of 1922, which brought Benito Mussolini and his National Fascist Party to power in Italy; the July Plot against Adolf Hitler in 1944; the briefly successful Hungarian Revolution of 1956; the student revolt in Paris in May 1968; the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico beginning in 1994; and the United States Capitol attack of January 2021.
I'll assume that the Jan 6th committee is looking at the 14th Ammendment, Section 3 which states:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
In strictly legal terms,
Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.
Trump did demand that Insurrection charges be laid against George Floyd protesters but AG Barr pointed out that the protests were not specific to the Feds and their officers. Barr did strongly recommend sedition charges to State AG's which is consistent with the charges on Jan 6th.
-->
@oromagi
I stopped reading when you referenced an alleged encyclopedia. I don't care what your alleged encyclopedia says. It occurs to me that you may not have understood what the word "insurrection" meant, and how that word is used colloquially versus what it means by law. Citation to an alleged encyclopedia that, most charitably, references no more than the politically charged colloquial usage of that term is unavailing.
Insurrection is a crime, made punishable as such by American law. In order to be charged with a crime, there has to be evidence to reasonably suggest the possibility you have committed the crime you're charged with. No one has even been charged with insurrection, that participated in the events of January 6th, much less been convicted of any such criminal act.
You have no evidence that any such insurrection occurred, because the prosecutors who have charged those who participated in the events of January 6th didn't even have evidence sufficient to file the charge. Yet, for some reason you want to argue with me about what happened based on some third-party account in an alleged dictionary? That is probably itself based on no more than citation to vapid reporting that misused the term in the first instance? That failed, by some astonishing lack of diligence, to even uncover the consequential criminal charges?
I understand you may not have been in a position to consider these facts beforehand. But perhaps upon such reflection, you will reevaluate the position you have advocated for.
-->
@coal
I stopped reading when you referenced an alleged encyclopedia
That's too bad. If you had read my reply before responding you would have discovered that all of your latest points were addressed therein.
-->
@oromagi
Since you claimed to have anticipated what I said, I read over the rest of your post. And upon doing so, I see you have failed to even acknowledge what I said, much less address it in any sense.
This is disappointing. Refrain from wasting my time like that in the future.
-->
@Greyparrot
"If you truly trusted the science, you would state that term and not lie about what a woman is".
"A person who who would lie about the blatantly obvious will lie about anything"
8 days later
-->
@coal
Yet, a cohort of individuals seeks to redefine that word to make January 6th an insurrection while at the same time defining the BLM riots as being outside of it. In the best case, it's partisan hackery. In the worst case, people can't make sense of the world as it is.
While I don’t use the word insurrection to describe Jan 6th, what never ceases to amaze me is how obsessed the political right is with equating It with the BLM riots.
The reason one could reasonably think of Jan 6th as an insurrection is because the goal of those who ransacked the US Capitol was to stop the certification of a presidential election, and they did so because the POTUS signaled to them that this is what he wanted them to do. It was all part of an elaborate plot to literally take over the government by installing the loser into the Oval office.
Whatever you think of the BLM riots, nothing like that could be said about them. These are not the same.
-->
@Double_R
political right is with equating It with the BLM riots
The political right does not "equat[e]" January 6th with the BLM riots. The argument is that based on nature of the violence, scale of property damage and consequential human suffering, BLM's 2020 riots were orders of magnitude worse than January 6th. Further, if the standard of what counts as an "insurrection" is low enough to include January 6th, then BLM is even more guilty.
Here's the basic premises:
- BLM was trying to disrupt/dismantle an instrumentality of the state's power, specifically the police. The BLM riots were an "insurrection," as that term is understood by American law.
- Evidence of the BLM riots constituting an insurrection is widely available, comprising among other things the level of violence, wanton property destruction and nature of their targets/objectives, as well as the intended effect of these.
- By any metric, the extent, scale, costs and losses which resulted from BLM's insurrection in 2020 exceeded anything that followed from January 6th.
Here are the counterpoints:
- There is no indication of a coordinated attempt to disrupt/dismantle the state or any instrumentality of the state's power in connection with January 6th's events. There was no single coordinating entity behind January 6th nor any common/identifiable purpose beyond protesting what they believed was a "rigged" election. At most, a bunch of idiots from the midwest amassed in Washington DC, because of their delusion that Trump would have actually won the 2020 election if the votes were counted properly.
- There was very little violence, minimal property damage, no evidence of any common intention to overthrow or disrupt the government. There were a few, specific individuals who clearly intended to disrupt/dismantle the transfer of power from Trump to Biden, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that was a purpose either (a) common or (b) generalizable to all who were present at the time. Rather, the evidence suggests that certain individuals coordinated a "protest" under the pretext of one or more baseless conspiracy theories and then tried to steer that "protest" into becoming something far worse. But it never materialized as intended, even though the stage was clearly set for that to happen.
- By all metrics, the extent, scale, costs and losses which resulted from the the events of January 6th pale in comparison to BLM's 2020 insurrection.
I am well aware of the prevailing "narrative" on what January 6th was. But I'm less concerned about that, and more concerned with what the evidence as it is currently understood actually shows. Nothing in this post should be read to indicate my agreement with any group or political figure's subjective characterization(s) of the events of January 6th or BLM's 2020 insurrection. I am just explaining the argument and premises behind it.
-->
@coal
The argument is that based on nature of the violence, scale of property damage and consequential human suffering…
Except that non of the arguments for why Jan 6th was so bad have anything to do with this. It’s easy to minimize something when you disregard all of the reasons why it matters and focus only on the parts you choose to focus on because they are politically convenient.
Here's the basic premises:1. BLM was trying to disrupt/dismantle an instrumentality of the state's power, specifically the police. The BLM riots were an "insurrection," as that term is understood by American law.2. Evidence of the BLM riots constituting an insurrection is widely available, comprising among other things the level of violence, wanton property destruction and nature of their targets/objectives, as well as the intended effect of these.3. By any metric, the extent, scale, costs and losses which resulted from BLM's insurrection in 2020 exceeded anything that followed from January 6th.
All three of these premises are meaningless.
Show me where the individuals whom these rioters were taking their cues from plotted to overthrow the government and install their preferred leader in power and then we can talk about an insurrection.
The reason you can’t do that is because there was no leader they were taking their cues from. What we saw that summer was a nationwide grassroots uprising over a video captured by the public, shared by the public, and reacted to by a massive portion of the population. The rioting was a case of civil disobedience. That’s not an insurrection.
There is no indication of a coordinated attempt to disrupt/dismantle the state or any instrumentality of the state's power in connection with January 6th's events. There was no single coordinating entity behind January 6th nor any common/identifiable purpose beyond protesting what they believed was a "rigged" election. At most, a bunch of idiots from the midwest amassed in Washington DC, because of their delusion that Trump would have actually won the 2020 election if the votes were counted properly.
Nonsense. Trump was behind all of this. The rioters themselves have all made clear before, during and after the events that day that they were taking their cues from him. You not only ignore the endless trove of evidence that Trump was trying to overturn the election he lost, but you ignore the concept of stochastic terrorism and how blatantly Trump used it in this case. The idea that you would tell your supporters their country had literally been stolen from them, assemble them right outside the Capitol as the steal was in progress, rile them up with a speech about how they need to fight like hell, and then step back and nothing would happen is beyond preposterous. Everyone knew he was responsible as it was happening, why people now pretend they don’t will never cease to amaze me.
-->
@coal
The argument is that based on nature of the violence, scale of property damage and consequential human suffering,
There are hardcore Democrat cultists that believe DC was a sacrosanct capitol and that any larping in that temple was an unforgivable transgression.
That Congress didn't skip a beat and continued as usual doesn't matter.
shared by the public,
LMAO. There was absolutely nothing "grassroots" about the year long lies about racist police perpetrated by MSM. (or the current year long lies about Jan 6. CNN had a 2 hour segment on the "insurrection" today.) Grassroots my asshole.
The rioting was a case of civil disobedience. That’s not an insurrection.
There are many legal scholars citing that burning down a police station might qualify as such. Violent uprising against established authority with the purpose of destroying it? Check.