Ask away.
coal - ama
Posts
Total:
44
Gnosticism is clearly correct about the God of this Earth being imperfect.
Why did this non Spiritual Christianity win out over gnosticism?
Why did this non Spiritual Christianity win out over gnosticism?
-->
@coal
What is the flight speed of an unladen swallow?
What does nobody expect?
Would you rather own a $20 million car or a $20 million house?
-->
@Incel-chud
Why did non Spiritual Christianity win out over gnosticism?
The gnostics had a lot of radical ideas. Many of those radical ideas threatened church power, but the gnostics were significantly divided among themselves. They were not only outsiders (relative to Nicene Christianity), but outsiders who could not coordinate effectively among themselves. Catholic theology won out, as a result. But that didn't happen until the 4th century, after the Roman Empire's decline (which also probably had something to do with why the gnostics declined at the rate they did).
- Will you ever debate again?
- Can we reasonably say systemic racism is a conspiracy theory?
Thoughts on Buttigieg?
-->
@coal
How do you feel about the news of DDO going offline for good tonight?
-->
@Novice_II
Will you ever debate again?
Probably not here, but maybe. There are some topics I'd be willing to debate.
Can we reasonably say systemic racism is a conspiracy theory?
Yes, because that is exactly what it is. Though, it is also other things . . . for example, so called "systemic racism" is, on a psychological level, at least also a paranoid ideation and delusion.
-->
@Earth
Thoughts on Buttigieg?
Buttigieg is an establishment whore and a trojan horse to the so-called "progressive movement."
Pelosi used Buttigieg to manipulate young, stupid and woke "identity politics"-inclined young progressives, to sabotage Bernie Sanders in Iowa, just as she and so many others have done so many times before.
This idea of voting for someone, not because of what is in their head or in their heart, but what color their skin is, who they want to have sex/romantic relations with, what is between their legs or what purported "gender" they hold themselves out as being is an abomination to everything this country stands for.
I remember a time when one man once had a dream that people would, in fact, be judged not by any such identity, but by the content of their character. But that was at a time that integrity mattered. Now integrity is replaced with identity.
A pathetic shame on us all.
-->
@Mharman
How do you feel about the news of DDO going offline for good tonight?
Please share the top twenty you Hate/Despise the Moste ex, vehicles, Dolly Parton, pigs, skyscapers, Congo { in Africa }, dance parties, apolitical people, swimming pools etc.
-->
@ebuc
Top 20 . . . what?
Coal you have me blocked so cannot reply directly to you question.
Please share the top twenty you Hate/Despise the Most
I gave you list of things as examples of what may be in your list. Just example. Give the to 20 things you hate the most. Please
-->
@coal
You drifted quite a bit to the right over the years. What would younger you think?
-->
@Earth
We should distinguish the two different levels of movement in play, implicated by your question:
- My move to the right (on an absolute scale); and
- The world's move to the left (on an absolute scale).
So, even though the extent to which I have moved is one thing, that movement looks a lot more significant than it actually is because of how far the Overton window has shifted in the opposite direction. That means that when the world went one direction, I remained in place; and then started moving right. Think of it like standing in the same place on the beach as the tide comes in, right before high tide, and then wading further out, deeper in. Relatedly, I need about a month on the beach.
> You drifted quite a bit to the right over the years. What would younger you think?
Younger me . . . when, exactly? I was a card-carrying Republican for much of my life. In fact, for the majority of my life that I was politically aware, I was at least Republican adjacent.
That changed in college. I was convinced I knew everything (#cringe) and consequently, was naive enough to be optimistic in the potential of federal (or state) government to meaningfully improve people's lives. I became, among other things, an advocate of gun control reform, bloviated/idiotic regulation of industry, state-ran social welfare programs and all kinds of other stupid things. Of course at the time, being convinced I knew everything (or at least more than 99/100 people I ever communicated with), I undertook the practice of what every other ivory tower "academic" does: used data to make arguments about policy. Mostly foreign policy, because that was what I was interested in. But domestic policy too, when the opportunity to grind particular axes arose.
There's a lot of pressure to conform in grad school, too. A *lot* of pressure. My colleagues were the pre-woke. Identity politics had not yet come to replace classically liberal Western values, yet. But those horsemen were on the horizon. I remember the first time in 2012 when our department designated a "safe space" for "marginalized groups." So called "ally" stickers and buttons started showing up. I was reading Dostoevsky at the time, and this passage has always stood out to me:
He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands.They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other.There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.
I had to take a "diversity and sensitivity" seminar, before they would even *let me teach* undergraduates. Things did not get less weird, though at least I understood what was happening because of my philosophy classes. I took a few fairly high-level seminars even as an undergraduate, one focusing on nihilism and postmodernism and others focusing on Nietzsche, Heidegger and Foucault. At that time, I wouldn't say I was "far left" but I was about as anti-authoritarian as one could be. My PhD advisor more or less insisted I stop wasting my time with "all that normative shit," so pivoted hard into the quant-focused. It was basically a remedial education in applied math. Our department head changed, however. I did not get along with her. She had a PhD in a fake subject who had managed to build an alleged academic career without understanding the concept of standard deviation. There were other developments, some of which I have discussed in other contexts, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Then as now I despised identity politics, and I was nauseated by the direction I could see much of the progressive left going. This would be the first harbinger of what was yet to come.
I was still pretty far to the left in law school. I also leaned heavily into the anti-Trump everything that characterized politics in this country. While I correctly predicted within a week that Trump announced his candidacy for president that he would get the Republican nomination, I never envisioned the possibility he would actually win. There were some things he said which I liked, but I found him to be intolerable in nearly all respects. I drank the Russiagate kool aid with the best of them. I read the polemics, closely followed the Muller report and spent hundreds of hours on the Russiagate everything. If not thousands. Plus I spoke Russian and have read like everything written in the English language about Soviet-era espionage in the United States. And much published in Russian. (NOTE: as an undergrad, I had a professor who graduated from Moscow State University, who had access to the Soviet archives back in that brief moment in time when they were unsealed during Gorbachev's last days and when Yeltsin was in power. For a moment in time, all that the USSR recorded was laid bare before the world. Now, the archives are sealed once more (or at least anything interesting).) Then I read the Muller report, after having been in the private sector for a few years. This would be the second harbinger.
How I see the world now is defined by the pandemic. The details could fill a thousand pages, but there were two moments in time that, even now, I remember like being struck by lightning. The first was reading Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London's March 2020 publication, purportedly modeling scenarios for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (i.e., lockdowns). This was not just incompetence, because these people were not merely incompetent. This was fraud. This was knowing, deliberate and willful misrepresentation. This was the kind of "modeling" you might laugh over John Perkins talking about in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." The second was reading the public response to John Ionidis' criticisms of, among others, Neil Ferguson and Imperial's purported analysis. Ionidis was not only right, he had the data to back up what he was saying (however small the represented cohorts may have been). The case for lockdowns was so vapid, weak and inane, however, I naively thought it would be summarily disregarded. Ferguson's paper was such obvious bullshit anyone with a high-school student's understanding of statistics could see through it. Yes. It really is that obvious. But not according to the so called field of public health and its representative in chief, Fauci, who bears nearly sole, proximate responsibility for the pandemic led the country's response to it. All that followed was perfectly Kafkaesque. Seeing Anthony Fauci so flagrantly disregard the scientific evidence on lockdowns, masks and out-of-patent compounds with clinically demonstrated anti-viral activity shattered any remaining Aaron Sorkin-type West Wing illusion of government's ability to do anything effectively, much less competently or well.
Everything else that has followed since then, just confirms what I saw. The difference between lockdowns and Russiagate was the illusion of credibility. I drank the Russiagate kool aid based on what I assumed the evidence was even though I never saw it. There sure was a lot of smoke, or at least it seemed like there was. But with lockdowns, there was no illusion. There was only a bright shining lie.
If my younger self knew what I knew now, I would have never called myself a democrat. I would have been ashamed to ever carry such a designation.
Now, I'm a one-issue voter. If you voted for lockdowns, you are disqualified from holding public office. If you are a member of the field of public health and supported them, you should face professional censure. But the problem is systemic. The NIAID, specifically, and HHS, generally, allowed a man like Anthony Fauci to not only gain rank but remain in place to maintain control over biopharma research public expenditures. The amount of power that single position holds set the stage for a slime ball like that to occupy it. Restricting the size and scope of government is the single most significant challenge we face as a people.
-->
@ebuc
The top 20 things I hate the most . . . ok, whatever.
- Tyranny (and its instrumentality, bureaucracy).
- Ignorance.
- Identity politics.
- Anthony Fauci.
- Joe Biden.
I'll think of others, later.
1. Tyranny (and its instrumentality, bureaucracy).
Putin, China, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Cuba and all government i that order of USA is last in that order?
2. Ignorance.
babies are born ignorant and stay ignorant of some time. All animals other than some age of humans---and those with mental hand-caps--- --- are ignorant to various degree.
3. Identity politics.
Ex ? People who identify as smarter than others and subsequent look at others as ignorant aka snobs
4. Anthony Fauci.
Trumpetes CDC official pick. Infamous for his no-mask at basball gamae with friend?
5. Joe Biden.
President of USA and free world who identifies as president of USA and free world?
I'll think of others, later
Political and general narcissistic liars ex Trumpet, who always taut ..' only I can fix it '?
How would you handle the legislation on Abortion if you were in charge?
-->
@coal
Do you believe in a political party system?
-->
@Greyparrot
Depends on what I was in charge of. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to regulate abortion. So, if I was in Congress or the Senate, I could not uphold my constitutional oath while knowingly violating it. On the other hand, if I was in a state legislature, I would probably oppose restraints on abortion after 15 weeks. But in general, I have no problem with heartbeat bills.
If a governor, I can't imagine allocating much of my state's budget to enforcing measures designed to curtail abortion. My personal opposition to the practice notwithstanding, I am existentially opposed to using the state's power to interfere with people's lives unnecessarily. This issue falls into that category.
-->
@ebuc
You are very strange.
-->
@Vader
Do you believe in a political party system?
Not clear on what you're asking here, specifically. If you're asking whether I support the American two-party system, I don't think it's wholly without merit or virtue. The same two party system is also far from flawless.
Though, it's worth considering whether there are better alternatives.
It's less worse here in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada or anywhere in the commonwealth. And Europe is no better, on the continent. Throughout the Western world, every other country seems to be afflicted with the same strange virus of the mind that has so pervasively infected the American political establishment. Ideations of "building back better." Grand delusions of "systemic racism." Support for fantastical idiocy, such so called "green" measures that are self-evidently anti-human. Coordinated vitiation of liberty, under the false pretext of "public health."
Outside the Western world, what else is there? One party rule? I'll take our system to one-party rule, 10/10 times. Vladimir Putin's United Russia is no viable alternative. Xi Jinping's Chinese Communist Party is little more than a more docile, but resilient combination of the Third Reich and Bolsheviks, with ambitions that would put to shame even the most egregiously dystopian hellscapes of modern fiction.
Even still, the Democratic Party in the United States is a threat to the American People's life, liberty and prosperity. For the current time, certain Republicans may be a better alternative. But in the end, ours is a crisis of value. Not in a pecuniary sense, but a normative sense. In this country, we have become far too comfortable with the idea that whenever any manufactured crisis is reported in the corrupt, dishonest left-wing media, it is fitting and proper that the federal government's power should be expanded in some way to solve it.
If we learned nothing else from the so called COVID-19 pandemic, it is that any such notion is nonsensical.
-->
@coal
Sorry lol, I forgot how important it is to be precise with a thought.
If you had the power to amend the constitution, how would you amend it to make abortion legal or illegal if at all?
Also I had a 2nd question.
If you had the power to add a constitutional amendment, what would you add to limit the scope of government specifically in the area of the government limiting an American's choice as to what they can or cannot buy. Whether it is in the form of corporate or banking subsidies or regulations prohibiting the production or sale of many goods? Do you think we need the Federal government to regulate the economy to such a large extent in order to preserve the Union and how would you stop it from expanding it's power over commerce indefinitely?
You are very strange.
You still have me blocked so no direct replies.
I do be silly sometimes just to get remarks like..' your a nut ',, or ' your crazy '....and around puberty teenage years my sister like to say about me...' your weird '.
However, I am not a doctor -" strange ". :--)) However, I did have E.M.Technician license in two states.
......space( * ) i ( * )space....
-->
@coal
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had the power to amend the constitution, how would you amend it to make abortion legal or illegal if at all?
On a personal level, I oppose abortion of any kind after conception. But this is an issue that is best resolved on an individual level, or, otherwise, at a level no higher than the state level. I really believe abortion is a political question best left to the states, that should not be the subject of either a constitutional amendment or supreme court's judicial intervention in the political process. Even Sunstein and RBG said the same thing, back in the 1970s and 80s.
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had the power to add a constitutional amendment, what would you add to limit the scope of government specifically in the area of the government limiting an American's choice as to what they can or cannot buy. Whether it is in the form of corporate or banking subsidies or regulations prohibiting the production or sale of many goods? Do you think we need the Federal government to regulate the economy to such a large extent in order to preserve the Union and how would you stop it from expanding it's power over commerce indefinitely?
I'm going to indirectly answer that, then directly answer it. The indirect answer to your question's assumed question (whether I would amend the constitution for any purpose) is that I would add an explicit constitutional right to privacy.
"The people's right of privacy shall not be infringed."
A right to privacy is presumed by the 10th amendment, both against the federal government and the states. But that, for some reason, has been controversial for many years. Asking colonists about privacy is like asking a fish about water. It was an expectation so foundational it could not even be precisely recognized as necessary to commit to paper. Clearly, that was not enough even though at common law even dating back to the Magna Carta, the concept of privacy was understood essentially to mean "the right to be left alone." It was a right to be free from the alienation, molestation and intrusion of others, as people conducted their lives in whatever way they chose. The right of privacy was so deeply presumed at common law it was thought self evident by the framers. However, the anti-federalists correctly pointed out the risk that strict textualism would later manifest: that risk being, a judicial theory beginning from the proposition that the bill of rights was a ceiling, not a floor.
An infringement on the people's right to privacy would include, domestic commercial activity (such as contracting, banking, products to be purchased, created, produced or distributed).
I think what you're getting at is what I think about the kind of proposed programmable digital currencies that the antichrists at the World Economic Forum and Federal Reserve are proposing. And to specifically address that issue, any kind of programmable digital currency that is controlled by the government would inherently violate individuals' right to privacy. As to other commercial activity, I think most regulations exist to serve commercial interests. The problem is that many of them serve only certain commercial interests at the expense of others. This is anticompetitive; an alienation on free trade by definition, and therefore improper.
-->
@Earth
I think this is what the court will find, and should find. That yale kid who wrote that article missed the ball.
actually I guess he isn't a kid, but a professor or whatever . . . .
In any case, Miranda is not going to be overturned.
Together, Chavez and Dickerson make clear that when an un-Mirandized statement is introduced at trial, an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights have been violated.
This is the law.