Scott Mayers

You missed the point. I wasn't arguing in favor of a dismissal of history but to the point about one's capacity to utilize external resources rather than requiring to memorize contingent data that is itself relatively less certain than one's capacity to use reason. Ford was being challenged for his lack of historical dates and figures in U.S. history in court as a faulty means to discredit his LOGICAL capcity to reason. They were trying to make him out to be "incompetent" intellectually when ones' capacity to be intellectual is not about one's capacity to memorize arbitrary data. Computer analogy: Memory is separate from the CPU. The CPU is the intellectual mechanism that acts as the logical 'intelligence', not the quantity of memory in RAM that you have. While having more memory capacity can ease the burden of solving problems, such as making one able to solve a problem quicker, it means absolutely nothing if the "intelligence" represented by the CPU is poor or non-existent. Memory is the data, not the process of thought, contrary to the massive majority of people's stupidity in thinking that those who have incredible memory (like those with great memory skills demonstrated on "Jeapordy") are somehow 'geniuses' !! Those with great memory capacity are not required to be the least intelligent. They just need to be able to respond to stimulii. Such skills in memory are called 'trivia' because they are trivial in meaning other than as 'data'.

Sounds fascinating and I have heard the concepts in one shape and form or another. "Mining" coins by asking a computer to solve puzzles? C'mon! The computer solves what we can solve, only much faster. Then who is supposed to generate those new tasks for the coins to be mined, the computer is not generating them by itself?? In all honesty, I think it is a lot of mumbo-jumbo with technical concepts thrown in to baffle our brains. The realities are much simpler. And This is What I Think --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Well, then," said the fox, "You're quite sure you want to go home? Go then, and so much the worse for you." "So much the worse for you." repeated the cat "Think well of it Pinocchio, for you are throwing away a fortune." "A fortune" repeated the cat "Between today and tomorrow your five gold pieces would have become two thousand." "Two thousand" repeated the cat "But how is it possible that they will become so many?" asked Pinocchio, his mouth open wide in astonishment "I'll explain it to you at once." said the fox "You must know that in the Land of Fools there is a sacred field called the Field of Miracles. In this field you dig a little hole and you put into it, we'll say one gold piece. You then cover up the hole with a little dirt, water it with two pails of water from the fountain, sprinkle it with two pinches of salt, and then, when night comes, you go quietly to bed. During the night the gold piece will grow and flower, and in the morning, when you get up and return to the field, what will you find? You'll find a beautiful tree laden with as many gold pieces as a fine car of corn has kernels in the month of July" "Suppose," said Pinocchio more and more bewildered, "that I buried my five gold pieces in that field. How many would I find the following morning?" "That is an exceedingly easy calculation," replied the fox " a calculation that you can make on the ends of your fingers. Figure that every gold piece gives you an increase of five hundred. Multiply five hundred by five, and the following morning you would find two thousand five hundred shiny new gold pieces in your pocket." "Oh! How delightful!" cried Pinocchio dancing for joy "As soon as I've collected those gold pieces I will keep two thousand for myself and make a present of the other five hundred to both of you." "A present to us?" cried the fox sounding much offended. "Don't be absurd!" "Don't be absurd!" repeated the cat "We don't work for our own gains." said the fox. "We work only to enrich the lives of others." "Others" repeated the cat "What good people" thought Pinocchio. And instantly forgetting his father, the new coat, the spelling book and all his good resolutions, he said to the fox and the cat, "Let's be off at once! I will go with you." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry for the late response. I'm not online as much lately. I already understand the problem regarding trust of what is occurring given the whole thing itself CAN be easily just set up fraudulently without others knowing the wiser. But we already have this with most technology. I don't like the general etiquette with cell phones given they are fully powerful miniture computers that SHOULD make people question the trust of these. They can (and do) have the ease to spy making anyone in its presence vulnerable to security. The very nature of faith we place in them is odd. Yet, I'm betting that you would be insulted if I asked you to place your phone in a secure faraday bag when coming into my place as though I am the one being paranoid, right? I already distrust cryptocurrency for the similar security reasons about trusting ANY tech. The point here is that IF we are trust the logic, ignoring whether anyone is being deceptive, my explanation is sound. The root of the term is, "crypto-" and refers to the same identical factors that we place trust in ANY of our passwords we use online. So think of the 'problems' that the computers solve as trying to decrypt passwords. The degree of passwords they solve though are far more complex than most of our regular online passwords we might use for doing our banking online. So if you distrust them, you should be very scared about even being here 'anonymously'. Basically, if we are to gamble at all in trusting ANY computers not to be used against us, the cryptocurrency would be far more 'secure' in the kind of passwords they are using to solve such problems. The KIND of problems they usually deal with is to try to find the prime factors of very very big numbers. While computers can act quicker than humans, some of the types of problems they are 'solving' are not able to be solved even with the best computers without time. My explanation here is unable to delve into the literal methods they use given it requires more investment in time to learn than I could explain analgously. What I am explaining is how it works in principle. The trust issue is real and why I don't trust them. But in principle, if there were some means of 'trust' being assured, the logic is sound. The reason many oddly 'trust' them is because they don't trust governments, ...those 'computers' made up of people. But if you don't trust knowable people to secure currency, then why would you trust better the very anonymous uncertainty of currency that uses hidden computer algorithms made from unacountable and unknown PEOPLE who create them?

And what are you referring to with this statement. Memory is not intelligence (even though it can add power to its effectiveness), ....especially if the loigc being used is flawed. One can have a great memory but lack an ability to address meaning. One can be very 'intellectual' even if they lack memory. Henry Ford argued that 'history' is unnecessary to memorize if one can nevertheless get the reference to what one needs. (using a 'hero' you might admire.) If this is a comment about me, specify so that I can address it.

The strength that Trump had was to his dictatorial power that he learned from business. He treated the country as though it were his PRIVATE company. While this WORKS to get things promised done, it RISKS the inevitable collapse of power of a 'democracy'. He is also an indierct contributing cause to the war in Ukraine in promoting the effectiveness of getting away with fruadulent behavior. Note that your 'side' believes IN creating wars in principle because it is GOOD for SELF-ISH monetary interests; While Biden may not be any better with his own 'conservative' exploitation of capitalizing on others to get wealthy, the Left is in general not confined to CONSERVING the present power of wealth with strict permanence the particular wealthy owning class , but INCLUDES those who are poor, dienfrancized, and HELPS to foster diverse backgrounds of people precisely because wealth begets wealth and all have a tendency to pass it on SELECTIVELY to ONLY those they LOVE while passing on the DEBT to the whold of society. Your side favors intrinsically in exploiting deceptive practices that are used to TRICK people. So HOW can we trust the very extremes like Trump who both represents a PRIVILEGED spoiled brat who learned how to use his ACCIDENTAL 'worth' to STEAL. Why trust those who believe in LYING. While it is right to question those on the Left for the same, the tendency of ANY PARTICULAR Identity ruling there still makes it the LESSOR of TWO EVILS. So shut up about redirecting your hate to Biden because those of us who ALSO have strong skepticism (one of those reasons why I'man ardent athiest, for instance), KNOW not to trust, recognize that ALL political powers will exploit in some form or other ...BUT are weaker to grant ABSOLUTE POWER to SPECIFIC people or their particular POPULARITY. Popularity belongs to art and culture. Your blind faith in a literal person AS THOUGH SOME SUPERIOR God, is ONLY for SPECIFIC contempory people who default to being like those extremes you hate on the left. Trump is getting away with what most normal unwealthy people are imprisoned or permanently LOCKED out of to economic success. He can AFFORD to fail many times which enabled him to become what he is. In contrast, most average persons, and moreso those with a gradually worsening level of poverty, can hare their lives and reputations destroyed by the simplest of mistakes; And just as often, those 'mistakes' themselves are only those DEFINED by the powerful intended to exclude competition from the bottom end (which contains the base of the wealth pyramid. THIS is why you guys hate democracy (and thus 'democrats'); you hate the poor. [See how I am not pointing to this as a 'racialized' issue?] Others supporting Trump FROM within the party are doing so for the same reason I asserted before: he is so unbelievably stereotypically insane in his claim for taking credit that the party is opting to also EXPLOIT his 'heroworshipping' morons who defend him. If any abuses occur, they can just assert that they themselves had no role in his PERSONAL behavior, had their hands tied, or some other 'safe' excuse. You support those like Trump, then you support the right of all dictatorships for whatever they do ARBITRARILY. While you may attempt to foster favoristism to extreme religious convictions, this too leads to favoring the extremes such as the terrorists anywhere who also believe in some strict religious excuse to maintain chaos. Your fights to save his reputation and power are also creating FALSE pretenses of more popularty where not REQUIRES existing. Pink Floyd's "The Wall", uses an analogy of the horo worship of the accidental/coincidental power of the favorite band leaders [Pink is a fictional 'hero) who learns that they can piss on their literal fans who support them and oddly EMPOWER their heroworship more and more by more and more extremists among them. That form of social psychology is also an intentional manipulative tool being used by Trump. Trump is NOT a trivial entertainer though. While 'culture' is the place for such fandom, his MONO-cultural personality extreme is what fosters its counterattack by the complementary whole of all other MULTIPLE cultures shareing similar views. The very fact that one CAN insult particular views on the Left without everyone disagreeing nor ganging up on EACH OTHER demonstrates why the progressive left is more generic. In contrast, anyone DARING to insult Trump, DARING to call him out as a liar, DARING to defend his heroworshipping fans REGARDLESS OF HIS BEHAVIOR (good or bad) makes Trump a very dangerous choice......including his own 'fans' who PROP him up on his pedestal. He doesn't like you freaky fans any more than his ranting tirades against his opponents. Contiuning to DENY overt and obvious SHARED evidence is also more proof of his danger: The act of overt lying in the the direct unequivical evidence of the opposite is "gaslighting", the WORST form of abusive character. "Gaslighting" would be like me telling you here and now that I never posted anything on this site. And it rightfully pisses off those who do so with such audacity. So the counter-hate against him is EARNED and he can't complain given he BELIEVES in it for his own intrinsic meaningful existence. So regardless of almost ANY weaknesses that you can point out to of those on the Left, this Rightwing support of such an absurdly EXTREME character as Trump is, assures us that he cannot nor should not ever be trusted in power.

This is not just for you but others unaware regarding what these are and how they werk. Given all 'money' represents value that is at minimal created out of ENERGY, some recognized instead of creating money by maintaining a hold on some form of real collateral asset or promises to return favor based upon some prior service yet to fulfil the trades, some computer scientist recognzied that you can create 'energy' in the form of one using the energy wasted on solving complex math 'puzzles'. Normally, an asset represents energy in the way that E = mc2 represents matter as being stored energy potential. Services are 'dynamic' assets that if served but yet to be compensated also represent stored potential energy,....both 'energy' because they have at least some stored potential that was created as DEBT, something yet to be canceled out by a normal bartered immediate completed transaction. The old means of creating these was to use some RARE commodity like gold or other rare jewels that were LIMITED finitely in supply. The creation of cryptocurrency removes the need for a literal commodity as well as the need for literal real value in dynamic trades. They artificially make the currency 'rare' by using a complex password or code based upon a very large unpredictable number. The particular number is like 'labeling' the coin with a very unique signature. Then, a program is ceated that tries to solve something that takes time for the computer to solve, like finding what the prime factors are in such a number (just an example). This will be used to 'mine' value by getting your computer to crunch numbers that take time and waste energy. The energy initially comes from the power plant's source and so is still 'real' at minum to the cost of energy being wasted to solve a given problem. When paper money, like promised of ownership (deeds) or debts unpaid (IOUs), these create money by holding onto either the asset directly like a bank buying a house initially before setting up your mortgage (they own whatever unpaid portion on the principle.) ...or by having some debt that someone owes formally printed in some hard to counterfeit means. [I can write an IOU but because someone could possibly fake my signature of promise to pay back, the document-paper moneys, which include most tradeable things on any stock exchange, these act as stored energy, promises to pay back energy incompletely traded.] The program of a cryptocurrency saves the record of its strored value along with the up-to-date accounting of the average value of that finite limit of virtual coins divided by total energy expended. Note that each 'coin' can be represented as the energy needed to solve one of those math puzzles. But they take unpredictable amounts of time which then represents the 'IPO' value of a stock, its initial offer. This value is independent of any political interference and counts on the type of complexity of the each problem independently. This initial 'value' might be rated as the time it takes to solve the problem. Since each problem is random AND unique, a virutal coin can take as little time to create as an electric pulse to potentially years. This part of the initial creation of a coin makes it relatively a 'fair' gamble for anyone, a lottery. Once created, whomever has the particular problem solved on their system 'owns' the value of the coin which is that average SO-FAR of all coins traded. Then those who TRADE in these coins BEFORE all of the fixed number of coins are found act as the SUPPLY. Until that supply is exhausted, most trading is only the SPECULATIVE trading that creates the up or down present 'value' per coin. This is like those on the stock market trading in literal dollars rather than the use of these dollars as normal curency. THIS is different once the supply maximum is reached. then whatever final value the total has at the end of this period represent the FIXED or permanent value that is no longer needing to be created and no longer 'speculative' The speculartion part is where much of the abuse can come from. But also, we still have to trust blindly the coders creating these to be trustworthy and given no government can inspect their credibility, no one can be certain that any real LIMIT (supply) is set. Thus this SHOULD lead to abuse somewhere given half the people anywhere in the world believes in some form of deception if they hold to unlimited wealth creation. As such, the speculation (creating a form of gambling addiction for those investing in computers to just solve the creation of coins) AND the fidelity or 'trust' in the literal fairness of the code to stop at the fixed limit in predefined supply, create the biggest risk takers as investors. BUT, if actually fair, the idea is sound. Once it reaches its maximum supply, the money acts similar to commodites like gold that has a fixed supply. Then the particular value only depends upon the total supply of value tied to each coin that the people using them gives them by using them as token promises in actual trades. The risks mainly relate to (1) Assured Limit. ...trusting there will be a limit [they become Ponzi shemes if not), (2) Not conterfeit....whether the programs 'mining' them are fair and sufficiently random, (not fraudulent programs pretending to be 'fair'), (3) Use....whetther others USE them for trading, and (4) No Safety Assurances without Regulation.... the lack of the means of safeguarding things like a 'run' on those wanting to cash out their coins during vulnerable ecomonic depressions et cetera.

Does it matter. Dems don't seem to care that Trump is no longer being President. Pelosi and Shifty sure seem to be desperate to nail him for something. They're like Boris and Natasha going after Moose and Squirrel. And that's inspired the other side to consider doing to Biden what Dems with their RINO toadies are trying so hard to do to Trump. Ask Jon Voight. Ask MTG And you are a fraud merely promoting Trujmp without any actual concern for intellectual debate. If you maintain your beiiefs with such PRIDE in your God, Trump, then you are expressing a RELIGIOUS belief only, not a rational one. And if you cannot tell the difference, you are absurdly stupid, something I doubt. I believe you are intentionally promoting a fascist faith in dictatorial deviants and the fact that you HAVE to be anonymous is proof of your own hypocritical guilt in the same kind of bigotry as Trump and other fascists.

That generic, "Not sure how your analogies relate" only tells me that you are evading the questions wholesale without a willingness to debate it. If I have specific arguments that definitively prove anything the anti-democratic anti-rationalists , Trump-worshipping bigots and racists simply dismiss makeing sense of the logic as though it is a foreign language. Trump literally believes IN lying as it correlates with his exterme belieif in absolute 'right' to EXPLOIT any means to gain a profit regardless of any actual moral conduct. I don't know anyone even on the "left" who asserts Biden, as the present contrasting representative in power now is remotely as though he is some God that Trump is given by the cult of irrational fandom granted to him.

So Trump had absolutely no role? I just explained how this post-hoc reasoning justifies a criminal to steal money then give it to the charity of their desire to assure the benefits of the crime are preserved in favor of the criminal regardless. So can you please answer in light of the argument rather than just repeating what I already acknowledge as 'fact'? Edit addition: It can be a 'fact' that the money given to a charity by a criminal be 'certified' real; The question is whether this coincidental 'confirmation' of money received by the charities suffice in permitting them to keep it. (?)

If a criminal robs a bank and then gives it away to a non-profit organization, like a modern-day RobinHood, although the transfer of moneys may be legitimately 'confirmed' as real, do these non-profits have a right to keep the money? Doesn't the acts of someone convicted of theft require giving up the right to keep properties they own that at least cover what they stole even if they gained those pariticular thiings themselves legitimately. It may be technically impossible to do anything practically with present barriers, but the philosophical question here first is whether the logic is valid about whether a convicted President's acts during the phase of his crimes justify removing the benefitical procedes gained by him, such as the act of appointing the very judges who have the power to overturn any conviction? If there is no accountability to actions of those in high places regardless, isn't it suggesting that others in this world should simiply give up any compassion for collections of people, especially 'democratic' ideals, or lose for NOT being equally corrumpt and deceptive? The nature of distrust depending upon the culprits of the problems are creating the very assurance of success BY these culprits regardless of what happens after their acts. Convicted or not, Trump's acts 'trump' any questions of his credibility. I believe that if we don't address these or just let these pass, the only choice for us all is to align ourselves ONLY with those favoring our particular welfare. And these will be based upon the lowest 'common denominators', one's own race or sex. Instead of fighting against "poverty", for example, we are forced to fight for "poverty of MY people ONLY". Such discrete classifications isolate them making it impossible for the actual underlying issue to be treated.

The Constitutional 'right' in U.S. politics is to have a system that does NOT accept those elected to represent one's PARTICULAR religious belief to impose upon all others. The beliefs against abortion, a choice of conscience based ONLY on a religious belief that anything biologically conceived at conception is God's will, is not 'constitutional' because it violates the right of those OTHER people's beliefs about what constitutes a 'person'. You Rightwing nuts don't question how Corporations are arbitrary CREATIONS of 'persons' ["incorporate" means to make a company into a 'person' in law]. Should we then not question whether 'person' itself of non-living beings could have a 'right' to have LIMIITED LIABILITY [They get to profit upon investment but are only liable to lose what they put in but not any DEBT they create, enabling them to ABORT their entity's existence with the debt being imposed upon the whole. You can't be hypocritical if you are arguing for some right of your discrete beliefs that dominate your reasons for being against abortion. If you think that some magical essence 'suffers' where it lacks life experience and proof of its conscious existence and worth of a 'being', you cannot bias laws that favor YOUR beliefs upon OTHERS that the rest of us are simultaneously NOT permitted to impose upon you for other's DIFFERENT beliefs, religious or not.

UNLIKE you, I am not influenced by what I merely 'hear'. I don't fall the absurd caricatured news outlets that act as rag magazine entertainment. As one WITH a high technical 'I.Q.', I think for myself and default NOT to trusting ANY UNIQUE sources of news. FACT: ALL television 'news' is biased and FAVORS the Republican ideals with respect to PROFIT by default. I interpret CNN as an alternate class of 'conservatives' who just happen to represent mostly catholic liberalism or 'moderate' forms of religions. Their relative 'liberalism' contrasts with the intollerant exploiters on th e Right who just happen to be most extreme given they chose beliefs based upon direct inheritance and not democratic choice. Your idea of 'news' is DISCRETELY authoritative by those you like emotionally. Don't impose upon me your own DISCRETE prefernce. I don't hve BLIND FAITH in any diescrete autority so don't think like your one track minded mentatlity. You are like the religious who think that the 'athiest' is just a form of your own religion that just favors your god's opponent demigod or devil. The fact that we don't believe in ANY 'gods' means we also don't believe in your DISCRETE Satanic demigod.

See above resonse regarding another asserting the same. But to add a point, should the options of selection be itself decided independent of the population to have power to veto? The confirmation was to the technical majjority of a branch of government that defaults to favor powerful people exclusively of the population at large. I cannot vote here in Canada for a similar type of reason: the SELECTION of which TYPE of parties get to even be permitted to exist is limited to how the PRIOR parties in power get to collectively eliminate competition. By presenting no real alternatives AFTER the nomination, only those of the Senate made up of PRIOR party affiliations and the coincidence of a technical majority get to 'confirm'; the rest are ignored. The problem here is that there is overt corruption that empowers MORE of those who act even more corrupt when they are literally obvious about their deception. AS to asserting "congress" as confirming, for instance, deceptively hides the fact that the DEMOCRATIC part, the 'lower' house representing the people, is completely overruled regardless. The Senate, being an 'upper' house, represents only the wealthy minority, as does the Supreme Courts. We are basically held hostage by wealthy people regardless, countering the ideals of what 'democracy' means.

He is being propped up by other Republicans because he is overty 'accountable' as an independent individual but 'unaccountable' to the rest. The other members, even if they don't like him, can EXCUSE their own flaws as due to him alone for proving he IS a lone wolf actor in his decision making. The choice to keep him their is because he points to himself as the party's decision maker and relieves the burden of the latent extremism within the ideology of the Right so that they can operate under the radar. I blame the supporters who turn their heads away and who borrows the same kind of corrupt belief in DECEPTION regardless. The point here is to ask whether there even IS any realistic means to EVER hold Presidents accountable. The reason Putin opted for overt violent war against Ukraine was because he too realized how effective the power of absolution CAN be maintained for ANY act of a 'republican' style leader as himeself. If Trump can get away with murder and his own countrymen cannot do fuck all to hold him or his party accountable, it proves that he too should be as bold knowing that the rest of the world cannot do fuck all to remove him from power also.

The original thought regarding 'republics' from Plato's ideal of having duty bound non-partisan intelligence which was assumed to be universally conforming has been corrupted by partisan politics that redefine the 'intellect' as whomever those in power alone get to decide should speak through them. That is, the concept of a "supreme court" places not those who are necessarily believers in raw intelligence but in emotionally-bound favoritism to select subsets of people with LOYALTY placed on top. So... Should we not question whether assignments to such powerful positions be placed by a single person such as the President. The postion of President no longer fits with the original concept of 'republic' either, ....as well as to the concept of "Senate". The U.S. uses the Senate as the body representing OWNERS rather than the original regional interests apart from particular people's interests, such as the envrionement. Thus, they do not represent the 'intellect' either but a type of overruler of democracy FOR the wealthy, given they command those regions in which their ownership interests are met. Should we not redress the original concepts philosophically to determine WHY what originally begins with one ideal gets perverted to serve the very opposite view of these founding concepts?

Are you asserting that he isn't guilty of anything or just speaking about how the technical difficulty of doing so will be overruled by whomever controls the Senate majority regardless?

Trump is treasonist for intentionally attempting to turn over the election in an obvious coup. The fact that those like you continue to praise him KNOWING this alone is disgusting.

Given Trump alone selected the justices that turned against the vast majority regardless of the will of the public, ...if he were to be found guilty in a tribunal jury made up of the people (as a vote), should his significant actions that potentially lead to the a conviction of the crime be removed? That is, since Trump intentionally set up the court to intentionally enable his insurrection NOT be convicted, is not his treason enough to relieve those justices? Obviously, I am for this but though this might be a distinct 'philosophical' thread for those questioning this.. What do you think?

I 'liked' but question the apparent link. It doesn't appear to be a legit youTube link but a redirect. Can you post the original link so that me or others can verify securely? (It will open a window here if it is legit).

It DOES mean that you cannot prove (nor disprove) any claims about whether a fetus is 'moral' or 'immoral' to abort. If merely asserting one's opinion matters, then why do we not just leave it up to a Hitler-esk leader to dictate their opinion to us and have us all compelled to nod to him arbitrarily? Why not accept whatever status quo is being asserted anywhere? Your faith in yourself ignrores and disrespects the faith of those opting for abortion as though your own opinion should matter over theirs, let alone my own faith in myself who disagrees with you. I argue with logical appeal; you argue with emotional appeal. Given the 'Left' is already demonstrating doubt by the same standards by the caricatured representative extremes for their EMOTIONS getting in the way, should you not prefer to keep things LOGICAL instead? Government is nothing more than a collective 'moral' legislator that PEOPLE, not gods, create to negotiate and set tentative laws that appeal to the most people. Because everyone has distinct backgrounds religiously, you cannot assume they share the same 'morals'. But even where they exist, religion itself is not proven any less a form of PRIVATE 'government' of one they particularly just gamble is 'good' for creating the label of this being as that which defines 'good' as an arbitrary dictator. [The word 'god' is a biased preference based on the same root as 'good'. It ignores though that evil has to also be a construct owned by this being or it BEGS the question. If God is 'good' just because it declares itself such, it begs why any 'evil' exists at all. "Eve", the root of the term, "evil" [Eve-al(l)] initially meant all that followed God, but Eve was also created by it. So who created 'evil'? If women did (as some propose of Eve as a particular historical figure), didn't God create Eve? Because of the contradictions, religions cannot be trusted as a root of morals but a reflection of what SOME subset of people belief. The creation of the religious Gods themselves are human creations relative to me as an athiest. So why would or should I accept having faith in particular claims that some person decrees is real when I too can just as easily assert that I am your God, and your lack of respect of me is not 'good' because I am the one defining what 'good' (and thus who 'God' is by proxy) means? [Note that God should be an atheist like me if it has no appeal to base its evaluation further than declaring it is so.] ...And I then created this post and at the end of it I saw that it was all 'good'; So it came to be that as the Aten fell to Adam, by Atum the perfect Sol(id) is to be returned to Eden the very next day, (for)Eve(r). And so now I will rest as I grant my Godness to Eve(eryting) fore Eve(ryone) and to carry forth my wishes for Eve(r). And thus, I am the creator of all that is Eve-El(ohim) too! Maybe I'm just too "Nile(istic)" about it all, but Nut(hing) exists above except (H)Eve(n) and (G)Od(den) before it.

No. I only understand that you simply assert belief without considering how those opting for abortion also have their own subjective beliefs to be respected with at least the same respect you expect of me to you for yours. Why does YOUR beliefs matter more significantly than others? Why, especially given you are a mere anonymous avatar here, do you presume I should trust your 'wisdom' over my own regardless? I didn't see you respect logically valid argumentation and so do you think I should trade that for authority of an adversarial view who predefines me as an enemy for lacking faith in your concepts of what is or is not 'moral/immoral'?

What about preconceived babies. Do they also count? Hmmm. What about jerking off. Do you save your semen because it represents an 'unborn child' potentially? When discussing 'morals', these need to be defined and then proven how they are somehow 'universal' regardless of one's particular background. Such subjective appeals are strictly religious. We DEFINE morals tentatively through that very system you go against: government!

So you've been reduced to arguing that I'm just plain 'wrong' just 'because you stated it? More Chewbacca [see my last comment to your commrade above.]

Oh, I'm sorry Ben. I didn't realize this was you! I think your bias is showing. Fame for being a pretentious success at his profession is like a Motivational Speaker suckering his audience on his own virtue as an intellectual adviser of 'success' based on how he became successful by becoming a Motivational Speaker. Such circular reasoning gets past you morons but ...whatever floats your boat, I guess. But don't expect me to count his argument as profound and rationally appealing simply because you can't notice the distinction of valid arguments. The argument BEGS signficance. The question posed to him was how he could seems to uniquely determine THAT an unborn fetus has 'morals'.? His response was to alter the defense by defaulting to assume that ALL life regardless of age is 'moral', get applause for the added insult against the 'evil atheist' and the reaction of the background unfriendly audience to non-concervative non-religious rationale. It reminds me of the 'Chewbacca' defense South Park mocked about using irrelevant appeals that sound as though they are more significant for emphasizing its irrationality. Those who validate the effectiveness appeal to the emotional way the defense is argued and NOT its content that is unrelated to the question at hand.

Why expect me to trust a known conservative nutcases who defends RELIGIOUS beliefs about 'value'? This closet case also lacks a valid argument given I already pointed out that the conservative view DOES discriminately 'stab people' most particularly when they are awake, especially when they back up their fearless compassionate need for guns, death sentences, and the war machine used only to profit selfishly at the expense of the unknown people they are harming half-way across the world. This has no validity whatsoever whoever thought this was a mic drop is appealing to the rhetorical con of asserting what is 'true' only needs repreating it or putting it in bold terms so that the dumb audience hopefully trusts that this comment was likey mentioned by some third-party unbiased and univested neutral viewpoint it is not. He is not a credible arguer outside of one's anti-intellectual FAITH in conservative politics.

So do you believe that people 'earn' their predisposition to exist regardless of the validity of life they actually live? What happened to compassion for suffering IN LIFE for those who did not CHOOSE to exist by irresponsible parents whom you expect should nevertheless BECOME the loving parents they aren't for their own willingness to choose abortion as an option in the first place? Do you think these immature 'parents' you'd be willing to toss in jail anyways still qualify to raise their unwanted children? You should at least want to know IF the potential parent is opting for abortion so that you can KNOW these are unfit parentally qualified. Then, given these are 'vile' criminals, you'd have to follow up and be sure that loving parents do exist elsewhere to adopt which enters the power of government to be permitted to also judge bad parents versus good ones, something you might also not want government to be involved with.(?) Look, to prove your sincerity, demonstrate your compassion and faith for ALL who suffer and die for ALL clear non-controversial topics that you simultaneously support. I believe that if you count the deaths up, you'd learn that the Right-wing ideals tend to foster more death and suffering of others far more than those who gamble on the sincerity of a women asserting their need to abort. If 99.99 % of gun owners are innocent users, than you should be able to trust that the majority of abortions are done with the same default of faith you grant these folks.