coal

This was a good topic, in that it gave me the chance to say some things that I hope actually changed your mind.  

Pence has zero chance of being president. 

In the past when I've asked questions that I hope will get long, narrative responses... I've not gotten responses that went as in-depth as I wanted. 

So, each of these questions are the kinds of questions that should take some time to flesh out.  Take your time.  

1.  What are the goals you have for yourself in (a) the next six months, (b) the next year, (c), the next five years?  With respect to each goal, (a) what are the steps necessary to accomplish them; (b) what must be avoided in order to achieve them; (c) how will you know that you're on track to achieve them? So, this is at a minimum a nine part question, assuming you only have one goal for each of those timeframes. 

2.  Identify the values which you believe are implicated in economic, domestic, and foreign policy in the United States and world (respectively).  Then, rank order the values implicated in economic, domestic, and foreign policy in the United States and world (respectively) in terms of which you think are most to least important; and explain why you ordered them in the way that you did.

3.  Politically, what ideology or paradigm do you subscribe to, and why?  Explain that in the degree of detail you feel necessary to convince a reasonably educated fellow college student of your beliefs.  Thereafter, explain what you think has contributed to you having those beliefs.  Then, consider the circumstances under which you would have opposing political beliefs.  Explain why those circumstances would make you have differing beliefs.  

When you're done with these, I've got more.

These are not easy questions. If they're too hard, just let me know.  I'll throw you some softballs. 

I don't understand your question, then.... perhaps rephrase?

Pulp Fiction wasn't as good as everyone holds it out to be; more or less, it had no plot and existed only for the thrill of graphic violence.  Which, of course, was the point.

Cloud Atlas is the most underrated movie of all time.

Yes.

>You've been bullish on Trump's impeachment. Many of your predictions haven't come true in a timely manner. How do you feel now?

I've been thinking about this question in the background while I answered the others; and from the start it is necessary to clarify that most of my predictions have not matured yet, such that the timeframe I predicted was the summer-fall of 2019 for nearly everything of significance to unfold.  Of the major predictions I've made, though: (1) Democrats retook the house; (2) nearly everyone in Trump's campaign has been indicted; (3) the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that there are more indictments to come; and (4) impeachment is in the horizon still.  

All excellent questions.

You are anti-choice?

He has almost no basis for any of the positions that he's said; more or less the beginning and end of what he's said is "Nope! Can't do it here!" He has neither concrete reasons for explaining why he thinks that population differences sufficiently preclude mixed market welfare states from being able to implement similar policies to, say, Norway; nor does he have anything approximating a coherent basis for his opposition to universal health care. 

What he does is he picks a few topics on which he thinks he knows something about; says a bunch fo things that to anyone who has a more global (by which I mean, all-encompassing as contrasted from a unidimensional or myopic) perspective could possibly recognize as being sufficient to support the claims he's making, then parades his conclusion around as if it were inscribed on Mount Sini on stone tablets.  

Further, the lack of transparency in medical pricing is an argument for socialized medicine; not an argument against it.  But, because Shapiro is sort of like an angry little brat of a commenter, he is too caught up in his ideological bubble to realize how inexcusably ignorant he really is.  And, to be clear, that's what this comes down to: basic ignorance.

Universal health care is the economically efficient option, as is proven by every country on earth who has it versus every country on earth in the first world that does not.  So, that's the "forrest" that Shapiro misses for the "trees" of things like medical pricing.

That's not to say that capitalism is bad, either.  Capitalism does a lot of good for a lot of things; but unregulated or insufficiently regulated capitalism leads to very bad things; like the state of things now. 

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'tenants' of social democracy. 

Best to just link the video... 

He is cute, but I don't like star trek and I don't like sci fi at all. 

Would probably bang if given the chance. 

what do you think he's wrong on?

I think Kamila Harris is among the strongest democrats in the field.  She is basically what Barack Obama might have been, if he was legitimately on the left.  She is still not as far to the left as I'd like, but she is probably the only democrat who can get both progressives and blacks to the polls.  She should pick Sherod Brown as her VP if she wins the nomination.  

>You certainly clarified the legal wording for me. As a layperson, I understood your clear example of the differences between the old law and the new law.

That is the hope. 

Have no idea who that is.  Is that a real person?

After reading over this thread, and doing so in the context of having already read over a bunch of nonsense from the evangelical right, and more nonsense from other people; it appears to me that -- while the meaning is obvious to me -- that meaning is not obvious to a majority of the people who seem to have opinions about the law. 

Perhaps it is unreasonable of me to expect lay people to be able to read laws; but again, I think that once explained, most should be able to understand it.  I know thett certainly is; as are many others, some of whom have posted in this thread interpretations not consistent with what reality is. 

Your interpretation is less wrong than Thett's, but the law is clear in terms of what it says.

It is not only that there be a risk to a woman's health, but that where the abortion would otherwise be illegal (e.g., post-viability, and/or post-24 weeks); but that alleviation of the risk by means of a late-term post-viability abortion be necessary (meaning that there is not another non-abortive alternative). 

This is significant because in the past, where the only risk was to health AND NOT to LIFE, even if abortion was the only option, it would have still been illegal under the prior law. 

Consequently, there is a greater restriction to abortion even than you are interpreting there to be.  Presumably the law was written that way to make it seem like the law was going further than it was.  But, it's not. 

The change is in the criteria for what kind of a threat is necessary to permit a late term abortion; whereas before, a threat to the mother's life in which an abortion was necessary to deal with the threat was required, now, a threat to health where the abortion is necessary to deal with the threat is enough.

Here is an example:

Before this law, if a late term pregnancy at, say, 23 weeks could be induced were the only risk to the mother in conducting that procedure was permanent disability (such as irreversible brain damage from an eclampsia associated stroke), but it was more likely than not that the woman would still live even if it was more likely than not that she would be brain dead for the rest of her life; a late term abortion would still be illegal.

After this law, a late term pregnancy can be terminated after the point of viability where the alternatives to abortion would expose the woman to a threat of something less than death, such as permanent brain damage, as I have described above.  

You obviously didn't read; for if you did, you would have gotten the point, which you are certainly capable of doing.

The criteria is "necessary" to protect a patient's health.  That means that the abortion must be performed in order to avoid a risk to health; because there are no non-abortive alternatives.

The mere fact that a mother's health might be protected if an abortion were performed does not mean that the abortion was "necessary".

So, if you want to be outraged over something that is objectively and verifiably wrong; by all means, but your interpretation that this bill legalizes infanticide is provably wrong. 

IRL

As I suspected, your interpretation of the bill is wrong for demonstrable reasons that I hope you will read and at least think about; because you are now the second person I've seen have something approximating emotional outrage in response to this particular bill.  

This is the bill:

While I grant you that this is one of the broadest protections for the right to an abortion in the country, there is absolutely nothing here to indicate that late term abortion was unambiguously legalized.  I have read a lot of the news nonsense from the right, including the most inept analysis of the same from the so called Christian Broadcasting Network, and the universe of all outrage seems to emanate from basic ignorance of what constitutes "reasonable and good faith professional judgment" in addition to what it means to be "necessary" to protect a "patient's life or health".  

It is true that an abortion may be performed where a licensed person competent to make a reasonable and good faith professional judgment deems an abortion necessary to protect a patient's health, but it is not at all the case that emotional anxiety or stress (as you and others seem to mistakenly believe) would be enough to satisfy the criteria of "necessary" to protect "a patient's ... health".

Given that we're in NY, NY state law would apply as to what counts for being "necessary" to protect "a patient's ... health"; not vague or free floating notions of "health" as generally construed by, among others, the easily agitated right wing.  From a facial reading alone, the (frivolous) interpretation that "emotional stress" would be enough to pass that test is rendered obviously false, because that would not be a good faith professional decision.  It would be judgment made in bad faith, which would expose someone performing that abortion to at least professional sanctions if not criminal liability.  

NY State Law has interpreted the meaning of that language pretty consistently since the 1970s; and while the caselaw does not specify every specific case in which abortion would be legal if performed after 24 weeks or the point of medical viability, the conditions under which a late term abortion would be necessary to protect a patient's health is not changed for late term versus pre-viability abortions. 

Generally, what it means to be "necessary" to protect a patient's health requires at the very least: (a) an identifiable medical (not psychiatric or psychological) condition; (b) that places a woman's physical health in danger; (c) in ways that would result in irreversible harm; (d) if the pregnancy were allowed to be carried to term. 

An example of that would be peripartum cardiomyopathy, which is a weakness of the heart muscle that by definition begins sometime during the final month of pregnancy through about five months after delivery, without any other known cause.  This is a condition that, if it were to develop in the final month of pregnancy, could very likely result in a mother's (and child's death).  

But, what does it mean to be "necessary" to protect a mother's health?  It means that the abortion must be performed and there are no other alternatives, like induced labor.  So, if you had a woman pregnant at 24 weeks who presented to a hospital with signs and symptoms of peripartum cardiomyopathy, and she asked for an abortion, what are the options? 

At 24 weeks the fetus isn't only a fetus anymore; it's medically viable, with the implication that labor CAN be induced which would likely ameliorate the threat to a woman's life presented by peripartum cardiomyopathy.  So, that means that an abortion performed at 24 weeks was NOT necessary to protect the woman's health; which means that such a late term abortion would NOT be permitted under NY State law. 

I use peripartum cardiomyopathy as a baseline example because it's not a trivial -- but in fact a quite serious -- medical condition.  It's more serious than pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and a variety of other third-trimester and/or late term medical complications that can be life threatening.  But, even then, if there IS an alternative to abortion, that means that an abortion is NOT necessary to protect health. 

Show me the law.  I am almost positive you are wrong.

If there are specific opinions he has you'd like me to discuss, point them out to me and I'll respond to those.  Overall though, I think he's wrong on nearly every social and economic issue he's had an opinion on; and he's wrong on almost every foreign policy issue he's spoken about as well.  

She chased down Mitch McConnell over the shutdown and he ran from her like the cowardly bitch that he is.  It was in that moment I decided I liked her. 

More questions are encouraged, too

lol I'm glad 

>I have learned to accept and love these darker emotions and i would not want them taken away from me for they are a large part of who i am

That reminds me of Lord of the Rings; and in particular, the story of Frodo.  I'm going to say some more about this later when I have time. 

There is so much in your last post it is probably going to take me four, maybe five 5000 character responses to say the things in response that I want to say.  That's not a bad thing, so much as it is that these are very complex concepts and it's not easy to just say a few words and then move on.  Anyway, here goes...

>paradise as described by most Christians i ask scares the crap out of me

If by "paradise" you mean heaven, then what I would suggest to you is that when and to the extent that each person conceives of heaven, what they are thinking of is more a projection of their ideal world than it is a reflection of what is actually described by God in the Bible.  The Bible has some fairly specific descriptions of heaven, such as the fact that God reigns there eternally; that Lucifer was purged from Heaven, and the like; but in terms of the character and environment of heaven, the Bible doesn't get that specific. 

Since I was about 12 or 13, I've pretty much thought that was intentional.  After all, if we knew *exactly* what heaven was, then it would stand to reason that humans would commit suicide en masse to get there now.  That's another curious difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Islam; while Christianity holds out little more than an abstract promise of paradise in the afterlife, that's not really an "inducement" to abide by the faith (which is why, for example, Pascal's wager isn't much of a wager because of the overvaluation of the thing sought, paradise), on the other hand Islam has some very specific offerings in heaven, that shall be given to each person according to their merit.  Some might theorize (and they have) that this is why Christianity is historically less murderous than Islam.

The point, here, is that when people talk about heaven, you should be seriously skeptical if you are lucidly interpreting scripture.  The bottom line is that there is minimal certainty about what heaven is, beyond generality and abstraction.  In addition, while people may individually conceptualize heaven as having specific and particular attributes, most of that is a sort of projection of what those persons might wish that heaven contains, involves, includes, or is; rather than a scripturally based description of what the reality of heaven will be.  

>hell with a smile

In the same sense, it's equally hard to conceptualize what "hell" is.  The most vivid conception of it, and probably the most prolifically referenced in Western culture and civilization, is the structure of hell as conceived by Dante Alighieri in The Divine Comedy's chapter, Inferno.  Inferno describes a journey through Hell as guided by Virgil, where Hell is conceived of as a series of nine concentric circles with torture and suffering approximating the nine levels of sin in which human beings can engage.  But, it is not at all obvious that Hell bears such a structure, however creative that poem may be. 

When I say "boyfriend" I am referring to my current boyfriend.

Overall, I just know a lot about medical, psychiatric, and psychological conditions.  Whether it's from helping the boyfriend study for stuff, or from stuff I've just come to know in the course of my life. 

I don't have it, though.  I've only known of one person who did.  

Fully support this idea. 

>neurofibromatosis

Yes. It's a likely genetic nerve condition that exists in two types which vary based on the time of and character of symptom onset.  Type 1 onsets usually in childhood and goes beyond sensory processing nerves; whereas type 2 primarily affects the hearing and possibly vision.  It's a condition that involves the growth of noncancerous tumors on the nerves, which can impair sensory processing and affect things like balance depending on where the tumors manifest.  

>Thoughts on Catholicism?

Generally, I think it's a theologically erroneous variant of Christianity. 

>Do you believe morals are based on genetically inherent traits that evolved to preserve the integrity of the herd?

I do not believe that morals are based on genetically inherited traits that evolved to preserve the integrity of the heard.  

But, that's a really specific thing you just asked.  There's a lot going on in that question.  To fully digest the meaning of that disagreement, we'd have to go through what "morals" are and are not; what exactly constitutes a "genetically inherent traits" and, whether or not, for example, that might include epigenetically inherited traits or only genetically inherent traits; what you mean when you refer to genetically inherited traits "evolving" (which is a strange way to describe traits that seemingly you think are *inherent*); and just what exactly "integrity" of the heard is, as well as "who" you mean to include in "the heard".  

>Do Orthodox Christians define "heaven/paradise" the same as Protestant Christians?

More or less in the same way.

>I think the 'submit or die' type mentality is man-made.

Not sure what you mean by that.  No Christian denomination maintains a "submit or die" mentality.  That's Islam. 

>How confident are you that humans haven't corrupted the Bible... little, some, or greatly? 

That is probably the most interesting question you've asked so far, and the answer to that question obviates the absurdity of strictly literal interpretations of Biblical texts, and the generally fundamentalist iterations of Christianity who base their so called theology on such literal interpretations.  The implications of this go far beyond merely invalidating fundamentalist Christianity, but redefine exactly how people can and should study the Bible itself or any interpretation of it.

I am as confident as I reasonably can be that certain translations of the bible can be read for what they are; such as the King James Version, the NIV, and the like.  There are other simplified versions that create a myriad of problems; in English and in most other languages on earth into which the Bible has been translated (which is basically all of them).  There are some German versions I've read that are good as well; same with a few Russian versions.  But, there are also German and Russian translations that raise eyebrows. 

Here's an example:  any version of the bible that incorporates the word "homosexuality" in any language is immediately suspect because the concept of homosexuality did not exist in or around the time that the Bible was written.  There were concepts that were "similar to" homosexuality, but they were emphatically NOT the same thing. 

So, what does this mean?  It means that when you see contemporary words which describe concepts that were not extant at the time the Bible was written (and "homosexuality" is a contemporary word, which has no then-extant analog) included in *any* scriptural text OR interpretation of that scriptural text, you should be seeing red flags everywhere.  The reason, of course, is obvious: some subsequent translator or version has imperiously modified the text's original meaning FROM what it was at the time the Bible was written TO that which the current translator wanted it to say for whatever reason.  So far as I am concerned, that is a cardinal error; but it's an error that is not uncommon. 

Homosexuality isn't the only word to which this applies, either.  The same goes for colloquially synchronic language (e.g., the word "virgin" as used in the King James bible does not mean the same thing as it does in 20th or 21st century English usage).  After all, all language is diachronic (meaning that it changes over time in terms of the way it is used), with the implication that it is improper to either interpose a 20th or 21st century connotation/definition to a word or term whose meaning varied from how it was used now when any prior version of the Bible was written.

So, literal interpretations are out the door.  Where that leaves us is in the position that we really have to think critically about what the text means; because merely looking at the words and then moving forward is NOT enough... and that's just the difficulties with a facial interpretation of the text itself.  That is to say nothing of the difficulties of interpretation related to biblical stories, like Jacob's coat or the trials of Abraham or Job.  

The implications of not having faith are a long and complicated subject, that, even if I was to answer, I am reasonably sure you wouldn't find the answer satisfactory.  It is enough now to say that we do not know the limits of God's mercy.  

As to your question of whether a person has "evidence" of their belief, that's fine... but it's not provable or verifiable.  

As far as orthodox Christianity is concerned; there are at least 10 recognized denominations I know of, and there may be more.  Both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism place a heavy emphasis on tradition. For the Orthodox denominations, the tradition is as much theological as it is liturgical ritual.  For Catholics, it's maintaining the rites, the structure of the church; as well as the means and methods of worship, among other things. 

That is not to say that tradition is "lost" among the protestant denominations or that it holds no significance; quite the opposite.  The difference is in the focus of the tradition, which varies widely among protestant denominations just as the focus of tradition varies widely in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the Greek Orthodox church, for example. 

I have my disagreements with other protestant denominations as surely as I have disagreements with Catholics; though I probably have fewer broader disagreements with many (though not all) Orthodox churches as I would with the Catholics or, say, Southern Baptists.

The big problem, though, across the whole of Christendom, is the degree to which politics and religion have become incestuous. The Founding Fathers believed, salutarily, that the state and church must be distinct for their mutual benefit.  That means that the state must be protected from the church as much as the church must be protected from the state. 

Nevertheless, the joint institutions both ought to exist and ought to check one another even if indirectly.  Now, that doesn't happen.  Since the 1950s and 60s, especially evangelical protestantism has become weaponized by the right for achieving their political objectives.  That is a problem more complex than this space allows for even minimally adequate discussion of.  

Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent by the Father to bear the cost of human transgression; that he was crucified, died, was buried, descended into Hell, overcame death, returned from the grave, and then ascended into heaven; that now, the Holy Spirit lives on, to guide humanity in the path of righteousness.  

That's not something you can "rationally" believe, though.  All faith is irrational, because it is by definition belief in the absence of verifiable evidence.  That's a large part of why faith matters. 

That is a really complicated question.  But, the tldr version is that protestants believe that only by faith can salvation be given.  Orthodox Christians and Catholics believe that there's more to the picture. 

I am a protestant Christian.  Specifically, I belong to the Presbyterian denomination. 

I think you are certainly capable of understanding why that comment was out of line.  

It is incredible that no one has posted about this yet. 

Today, Roger Stone was arrested for obstructing investigations into his and others' efforts to collude with agents of the Russian government.  He has been charged with, among other crimes, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. 

The indictment makes clear that Muller knows about the efforts to channel document dumps hacked by Russians through Wikileaks to the public for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 Presidential Election; and to cause harm to Hillary Clinton in the same. 

The indictment implies heavily that further indictments are forthcoming.

It is widely understood that Maduro's election was procured by fraud. To that end, there is little question that fraud is what got him elected. Maduro is an incompetent dictator, to say the very least.  But, he is a dictator who faces a coup as a result of the fact that his so called election was procured by fraud.

Vladimir Putin is supporting Maduro because, as another incompetent dictator whose election was procured by fraud, if Maduro goes, Russians might get wild ideas in their heads in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  What is happening in Venezuela is Putin's worst fear in Russia. 

Who are the more extreme members of the party you are talking about? AOC?  She is not extreme.  

I think AOC is great.  She is growing on me in all the right ways.  But, she is not in a position to be the speaker. 

Chuck Schumer is a waste of space.