Technically there's no recognition of sexual etc etc etc — Outlander

Absolutely.

One of these things is not like the others. — Pfhorrest

(The things being supporting LGBT parades, capitalism and the welfare system)

But they are each a core American value.

Now, what would the world be like if the aforementioned things happened? — philosopher004

The world would be in a constant state of overproducton crisis.

The Jews would not be welcome in any country, and they would not have regained their ancient homeland.

There woudl be less turmoil in the Middle East.

America and Russia, and later every man and his brother (so to speak; meaning all countries that have it) would not so quicly and easily develop nuclear weapons

The cold war, if any, would have been more temperate

There would be much fewer technological advances, including computers, tvs, air travel, etc. etc.

There would be less social justice, most of Europe would still be kingdoms, politically, and more people would live in abject poverty

Likely bacterial infections would maim and kill many people antibiotics not having been invented

Viet Nam war and Korean war never would have occurred, so wouldn't the WWII

To the original poster, regarding his question: why a wealthy person would have left-leaning political views.

Easy. He or she has a heart. He or she is an empathetic being, who feels the pain of others, and wants to stop it for them.

The leisure argument above is simply one of the false ideals of the fascist American culture created to justify its own present-day mythology.

There is no proof. His logical mistake is that he states "Because someone must or should be punished, he or she WILL be punished." That is simply not true. Lots of things that should be done do not get done. That's where the fallacy in his logical line of reasoning fails.

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not. — creativesoul

This IS ambiguous.

There are several ways to read it, if you have English comprehension skills of grade five equivalent or higher:
The benefit of a white American is that s/he is not white.
The benefit of a white American is the immunity from injury because s/he is not immune from injury.

In either case the ONE IS NOT refers to the only humans mentioned in the sentence, White Americans. It also uses the conjugated form of the verb BE in a negation, so it negates either one of the conjugated forms of the verb BE. One such previous is BEING (White American), the other is the BEING injured. The IS THE IMMUNITY is not the antecedent of ONE IS NOT because ONE is a personal pronoun, it referst to a human being, and immunity and exemption are not human beings.

The sentence in effect negates itself, and is not only convoluted, but it is nonsensical as well. It statest the absurd, by invoking the reduction of absurdum, and the author insists that he had made a point. Whereas in effect his sentence structre is, after removing the ambiguity of the unspecified reference between a choice of two separate antecedents, somewhat equivalent to:

My car is green because it is not.
My son is tall because he is not.

ETC.

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, I assert that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the very circumstances that compel the capitalist farmer to apply to agriculture collective and organised labour, and to have recourse to machinery and similar contrivances, will more and more render the nationalisation of land a "Social Necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property can be of any avail. The imperative wants of society will and must be satisfied, changes dictated by social necessity will work their own way, and sooner or later adapt legislation to their interests."

Marx's statement is already a fact. Social necessity has rendered the restructuring of private property absolutely imperative in order to meet the needs of society. But this is where it gets interesting, while Marx is assuredly correct, the question arises, even though serious changes are required, will necessity be enough to bring about an intelligent restructuring? The danger is that though the needs exist, a chain of power determines to defy these needs regardless of the ramifications. — JerseyFlight

Finally you make two good points. The chain of power is presented in an uprising or revolution. And you fear that the restructuring won't be intelligent... that is a very rational and valid fear. Restructuring may very well be done unintelligently. Both these notions don't contradict Marx's text.

"At last comes the philosopher and demonstrates that those laws imply and express the universal consent of mankind. If private property in land be indeed founded upon such an universal consent, it will evidently become extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it."

Here Marx is attacking the philosopher for creating a false metaphysics which justifies oppressive power structures. Producing a metaphysics which justifies tyranny, is the default trajectory of every thinker that remains ignorant of class distinctions. In other words, though he thinks himself to be laboring in the domain of liberty, through ignorance he is actually reinforcing the oppression of the status quo. — JerseyFlight

Italics my addition.

You apparently can't see he is describing the status quo, and establishes the observance of a universal truth. He does not give it moral support or any sort of reinforcement. What you claim is equivalent to Newton morally supporting and reinforcing the notion of justified gravity and gravitational force. That's my impression, anyhow.

You seem to try to apply a twist to every quote you bring up. To your disadvantage, Marx was a clear thinker and an effective communicator. To your advantage there are a huge number of people who will support your opinions, because of social-emotional pre-condemnation of anything Marx has ever written.

"The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class."

Though this point might seem simple, it's most certainly not in our day and age. People do not think that wealth proceeds from the earth, most people believe it proceeds from innovation, pure idealism, but such idealism would have no matter to bring its form into being without the earth. — JerseyFlight

You make a Strawman argument. Marx said, "original source", and you equate it to "all sources", then you point out how the quote by Marx was wrong. No, it was not wrong. Your interpretation (which is pretty hard to do, seeing that Marx's text was written in such clear, plain English) was wrong. This was a big mistake on your part as a careful reader.

I don't want to delve much further into your argument. If you use all kinds of fallacious arguments, and you take yourself seriously based on them, I am not interested in what you have to say.

Such a political method is known as barbarism. — JerseyFlight

I have never heard of "barbarism" ever as a political method. Maybe it's in use, I don't know, in some schools of political history or political economy. Would you please be so kind as to point at the source where "barbarism" is defined, as quoated by you?

If two genres of some medium are well-known, for example, with many variations on the same theme, and then a new work of art is made in that medium that blends elements of both genres in a way that shows them both to be the ends of a longer spectrum of genres, then that will be seen as very creative. It will also open up the potential of still further creativity later, as other works located along that same line in the space of possibilities can then have the context of that spectrum to anchor them, to give them purpose in filling in the unexplored regions in the middle of that spectrum and beyond its known ends. If one such spectrum of possibilities is already known, and a new work can bridge between it and ideas that lie off of it in such a way as to expand the spectrum into a new dimension, suddenly even more structure in the space of possibilities is made apparent, and even more opportunity for further creativity is opened up.

In relating already known ideas to each other across a space of previously unexplored ideas, new works can give further context and significance to existing ones and draw context and significance from them, and it is that process of connection and contextualization, not mere nondeterministic randomness, that constitutes creativity. — Pfhorrest

This does not deal with the topic of whether creativty is discovery or not. This is a different topic, namely,how the creative process works.

I am not sure if you've realized that the true reason your second part is not answered by anyone, is because it is not an integral part of your firstly presented lemma. In this second part you try to point out how the creative process is a determined course of action. I have no argument against that, I agree with that, as I am a firm advocate of determinism and of the deterministic nature of the universe we liive in.

you claim that if the world is deterministic, then there are no original, creative, created ideas
— god must be atheist

Nope, I just claim that creativity doesn't lie in non-determinism, for reasons that hinge on there not being a clear division between invention and discovery. — Pfhorrest

Well, if that's a true description of your claim, which I believe it is, and I shall treat it as such (and therefore please don't alter it in this thread), then I have a better answer for you.

What you claim as muddled distinction between invention and discovery is muddled because you do not differentiate between the two point of views: a human inventor, and an all-knowing discoverer.

I agree with you that all inventions can be formulated as ideas, and all ideas have existed in this universe. Therefore there are no original ideas.

But a human being simply does not have access to this warehouse of information. We do not mine the warehouse to discover useful ideas.

Instead, we, humans, gather, analyze, manipulate information (data) to come up with ideas that had been not known to man before. This is an invention.

A discovery is simpler: you see something or sense something in some way, which you haven't before, and you add it to your information base.

An invention by man is an invention from MAN'S POINT OF VIEW, and it is such due to the process HOW IT IS DEVELOPED.

An invention from the point of view of a hypothetical all-knowing being (whether it exists or not) is a discovery. The all-knowing being does not have to develop an idea, only has to find it in the warehouse of knowledge.

The existence of God naturally explains all these — Marco Colombini

Science has more qualifiers (arguably) than just its theories need to be falsifiable and it must settle with the simplest explanation.

The other qualifiers of science are its usablitiy of theories, repeatability of experiments, and value as a predictive source. God-explanation beautifully cuts through all the knibs and knabs, but fails at all other requirement to be scientific, save for being the simplest explanation.

Dear Pfhorrest: you claim that if the world is deterministic, then there are no original, creative, created ideas, because conceptually all ideas that are possible to come up with can be arrived at with an iterative or with an other, but still deterministic approach.

This is true if we accept that the world is deterministic.

And I do think that the world is deterministic. Yet I believe without self-contradiction in man's creativity.

Man has limited brain power. To harness the huge amount of original ideas that had been made possible by the arrangement of the universe, is impossible for man, because man's brainwork capacity is not large enough to create or imagine all ideas. If it was large enough, yes, there would be no creativity. But that is not the case. Therefore creativity exists.

-------------

In other words: the model of creative thought is not that of picking off ideas from a presented full set of possible original ideas. Instead, the creative thought combines available elements and manipulates them into hitherto non-existing new thought. The combining and manipulating is what creativity comprises.

===============

To use your nature photography metaphor:

Yes, man can take infinite photos of nature, given infinite time and resources to make photos.

But he has neither infinite time, nor infinite resources.

So he is restricted to a finite set of photographs.

After taking some photographs, man IS capable of creating scenes on canvas that had never appeared to him in reality. He combines visual elements, he manipulates them, and bang, there is a photograph-like creation that most likely has a real equivalent, I mean, an equivalent in reality, but that the photographer can't access in his life time, yet he can create it without accessing it.

Thank you, guys. I am back against doctors' orders. Just for a few hours, because it turns out it is really not healthy to get myself upset, and I can't reasonably to expect anyone to not upset me; since the upset is not in their making, but caused by the relationship of my opinions to others'.

So I may make a few appearances, but in effect, I will pull out. This is not personal; it is survivalistic.

And by the way, thank you all for your well-wishes. This shows to me that this is a community, a coherent one, which although is formed on the fact we have different opinions, is still fostering a sense of belonging, acceptance and social-emotional cohesion. Thanks, this will be good for now. checking out for a few more months now, but not forever.

The moment they were done reciting seems random, there seem to be no sufficient reason their recitation was done at one time and not another, any other. — jorndoe

That's why they finished when they did. That point in time when they actually finished was just as valid as any other point in time to finish, since any other point in time would have been equally as valid a finishing point as the actual one.

The reason that is sufficient to explain why they ended when they did, is that 1. They could have ended any time, reasonably, and 2. the time they ended at was in the set of "any time", and 3. unsaid, but assumed, and fulfilled the requisite, that there is only one time that the recitation ends. It can't end, for instance, two different times. Or 345 different times. It can only end one time.

Rather "1" is to be understood through its role in the process of counting. It is understood in learning how to count, not in pointing to individuals.

And of course this goes for other mathematical entities, too. They are things we do, not things we find. — Banno

In a running race (like Marathon races) people are assigned each a different number. For identification purposes.

Would you call those numbers (one included, and other mathematical entities included, such as "2", "4", etc.) things we do, not hings we find?

The runners could be called "A" "B" "C" ... "AAZAET", etc. or they could be identified with a scale of colours.

This opening post has pretended to define the true nature of "1", but alas with impoverished thinking. Language uses its components in many ways, and to try to restrict a multiply-used component to fewer uses than the language already employs for that component, is a proposition that is obviously wrong.

Let me explain. The Opening Post appeals to the masses to use the word only in the meaning that the writer of the OP allows. But the word has long ago grown beyond that meaning only. The OP ignores other valid meanings to prove its wrong point, and declares the other valid meanings wrong. This amounts to nothing less than trying to redefine the language.

'Hilbert said that in a proper axiomatization of geometry, “one must always be able to say, instead of ‘points, straight lines, and planes’, ‘tables, chairs, and beer mugs’”' — Baden

This may work in some weird way, but this would also bastardize the language. The concepts "point, straight lines, planes" have at least some semblance to human envisioning what these things mean in geometric concepts. While "tables, chair and beer mugs" would also work if used consistently, there are already assigned meanings for these words that are vividly different from the assigned approximate meanings of point lines and planes in our language.

In other words, a person could rewrite entire books of science, philosophy and literature, by assigning to each word's meaning a totally different existing word, which would lose its original meaning. This is good exercise is logic and in theoretical thinking of the use of language, but would amount to nothing more. Therefore it is not done. Notice, that no textbook of geometry uses "tables, chair an beer mugs" for "points, straight lines and planes." There is no other reason for the lack of wicked bastardization, but the fact that some words are more conducive to conjure up a meaning for a newly introduced concept.

What are reasons without values behind them in terms of how people act towards each other? — schopenhauer1

Did I mention VALUES anywhere in my post? What the heck is this sort of Strawman fallacy?

Don't upset me, please.

Ethics are subjective values, and as such, they are not useful for an argument. If you want to say "It saves lives, or has a better chance to save lives", that's a good value, and has nothing to do with ethics, does it now.

Whatever. If you call it ethical, it's shmafu. Meaningless. Haphazard.

If you make good, solid arguments why it ought to be a different way, I support your cause. Being reasonable, and conducive to a goal is much better to call a change on those grounds. Calling reason "ethical" is evil. Reason is reason, and your reasoned well. Forget ethical. That's nothing more than a nice word, that UNDULY recruits emotional support for your cause.

If you can't reason, you ought not to fight for it. But you reasoned it well. You don't need ethics. Just present your reasons.

If it's not helpful, by all means ignore it. — Antidote

No. People like you ignore evil, unhelpful things. I, and people like I, fight against them.

The Bible quote -- was it a quote? or your paraphrasing a section? You ought NEVER to paraphrase the Bible, and you MUST ALWAYS give line and reference numbers, as well as name of translation -- was a completely meaningless statement, or else it was badly paraphrased.

WHY DO YOU DO THINGS LIKE THAT???!!!???

The guidelines are legal, the decision is ethical. The legal guidelines are a balance with the optimum protection and the optimum production efficiency in mind. Obviously in some cases both the efficience an the protection will suffer.

Is it ethical of the employer to direct their employees to come in to work, when they can do it at home? God only knows. I think "ethics" and "morality" are big words, but only by those who use it. One person's ethical deed is another person's unethical deed.

"Lenin was admired by millions for his high ethics."
"Lenin was deplored by millions for his unethical behavoiur."

There. If you want to make a decision on ethics, go ahead, but don't hold anyone else to it, because one person's ethic is another person's evil.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." — Antidote

So... this says, literally, that if you sin, after receiving the knowledge of truth, then
-- all enemies of god will be consumed by fire
-- We, the deliberate continuers of sinning, can fearfully expect judgment and the fire that consumes the enemies of god
-- but it does not say that we've become the enemies of god.

---------------------

Furthermore, it states by omission, but definitely follows from it:
-- the enemies of god will not be consumed by fire if WE (we, who are a body independent of body of the enemies of god; by "body" I mean group of people) don't continue deliberately sinning.

This is the word of thy God, asshole.

↪SonOfAGun ↪Pfhorrest ↪Vinicius ↪Pinprick

The above comment was addressed to you people. — Frank Apisa

I am glad you left me out of the list. It would have been a direct insult to my intelligence to be instructed to read the same stuff you have written ten thousand times** already.

Then you are surprised why we call you a one-topic poster.

** Disclaimer: Not an exact count.

To believe something is to think something about how the world is or is not, about what is real or not, what exists or not, etc. As opposed to, say, thinking something about what is good or bad, what ought or ought not be, etc. Or other kinds of thoughts about different kinds of things. — Pfhorrest

@pinprick, to underpin the above, think of this old adage from the nineteen-seventies, when religion was first challenged for its beliefs on a wider scale in North America:

@'Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.'

This ought to demonstrate the way the word "believe" has been adopted (and adapted) to many, many uses and meanings in English, and it has become so diverse, that a single, uncompartmentalized definition can't cover all its meanings.

you are mixing up ethics with human rights again. Granted, they have to do something with each other.
— god must be atheist

Human rights are part of ethics. What are you talking about? — Nobeernolife

Oh, I remember now. They may have suppressed the individual rights of the human beings, but the quality control over chemical manufacturing, esp. over pill industry, may be stringent. I DON'T KNOW THIS, AND I AM NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS. I am just presenting it as a possibility.

As such, the human rights may be the pits, but that does not NECESSARILY influence the quality of medical drugs they produce.

That's what I had in mind. Again, you may be perfectly right, I don't know any facts what goes on in China.

Human rights are part of ethics. What are you talking about? — Nobeernolife

You're right. I was wrong.

It's the fact nobody has immunity and enough are sick enough that they require hospital care that will demand all the healthcare capacity a country has. — Benkei

Eventually it will also come to deathcare. Who will bury the survivors? The funeral homes and cementery workers will be pushed to their limit of capacity. In both showing compassion and physical strength.

Jewish people will be extra hard hit in funeral arrangements, because they have to bury their dead in 24 hours after the event. There will be a bidding war, whose dearly departed will be seen to the last rites before the other one, and before the 24 hours run out. Funeral directors will have to work round the clock, and there isn't enough manpower to man the station, the crematoria, the plot digging, the stone erecting, stone carving, prayers, etc. etc. Some cemeteries have no extra plots... and so an and so forth.

Some segments of the economy will suffer a sudden death or premature death: old folks homes, walker- and wheelchair manufacturing and distributing industry, seeing that for a short while there won't be old people.

Thanks. And I agree with your analysis of how logic works. I would call the two types you described as analytical logic and applied logic. But only becasue I am old skool. I like descriptive names that mean what they say. User-friendly naming conventions.

You mean the CCP? The one that jailed people for months for talking about Corona? Seriously??? — Nobeernolife

@Noobernolife, you are mixing up ethics with human rights again. Granted, they have to do something with each other.

results for: 60 tablets HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE SULFATE 200 MG Tablet near 77381

Modify Search
Get Price Alerts
KROGER PHARMACY See more KROGER PHARMACY locations near me
4747 Research Forest Dr
The Woodlands, TX 77381
(281) 298-6165

9am - 6pm

As low as...
$19.80
Add to My Saved Search
Move to Medicine Chest Add to Med Chest
Get Coupon


HEB PHARMACY See more HEB PHARMACY locations near me
10777 Kuykendahl Rd
The Woodlands, TX 77382
(281) 292-8026

9am - 6pm

As low as...
$29.99
Add to My Saved Search
Move to Medicine Chest Add to Med Chest
Get Coupon


WALMART PHARMACY See more WALMART PHARMACY locations near me
25800 Kuykendahl Rd
Tomball, TX 77375
(832) 761-8483

9am - 7pm

As low as...
$40.39
Note: savings card is not valid for opioid medications at Walmart
Add to My Saved Search
Move to Medicine Chest Add to Med Chest
Get Coupon


Tired of clipping coupons? Keep your savings in your pocket with your ScriptSave WellRx prescription discount card.

No sign up required

Get Your Savings Card



WALGREENS See more WALGREENS locations near me
4585 Research Forest Dr
The Woodlands, TX 77381
(281) 465-0548

9am - 6pm

As low as...
$58.07
Add to My Saved Search
Move to Medicine Chest Add to Med Chest
Get Coupon


CVS PHARMACY See more CVS PHARMACY locations near me
4775 W Panther Creek Dr Ste A100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
(281) 363-9174

9am - 6pm

As low as...
$72.84

---------------------

These are the prices for the French Protocol for one person.

If you have more than two people in your household, @Shawn, and fewer than 9, then you made a good purchase.

Right. Thanks. I'll price them now.

be aware of the fact, too, that once I picked up a guy in my taxi, and he was cussing and cursing, because he gave $60 to a hooker to get him some rocks. She said to him, "Wait here", and a few minutes later reappeared with some of the stuff. Which turned out to be nothing but little pebbles -- silicon pebbles. Chinese are just like everyone else, nothing worse, nothing better, so... Caveat Emptor.

Absolutely. I don't know how much the same thing costs in US dispensaries. $5? $5,000,000.99?

I bought some Hydroxychloroquine from Alibaba. Intend to do the French protocol of 600mg a day for 7 days.

All in all it costed me with shipping from China via DHL, 49 USD for 10g. — Shawn

Official prediction by my think tank: In a few hours Trump will declare Hydroxychloriquine an extremely dangerous and useless substance, and will ban its importation from overseas.

There will be movies made of the the smuggling. Two movies, to be exact. One will be titled "The French Protocol", the other, "The Chinese Protocol". They will be basically just remakes of the "French Connection" and of the "Chinese Connection".

There will be a movie made of the new Democratic runner, just entering the race, who is of Asian origin, and the movie will be titled "The Manchurian Candidate."

Suppose that every old case of Covid-19 produces just one new case each every day.

If the united states has 300 million people; and it takes 28 days to infect half of the population of the united states; then if the trend does not change, how many more days would it take to infect the entire USA?

@Janus: further to the goods/money supply ratio: the people who are out of work, are also out of income. So that also increases the ratio, as the bottom part is not growing faster than the top part. They ought to be roughly equal. But thought he bottom is fattened by gov handouts,the top is increased because the goods are not consumed.

I dunno. In actuality, it could go either way. Hard to say now.

What did you mean by this then?:

but the goods/moneysupply ratio may actually increase, not decline.
— god must be atheist — Janus

This is a ratio. It can increase in value if the numerator (the top part) increases faster, than the denominator (the bottom part).

You were worried that there may be inflation, by the gov giving out free money. But if the FEW people who remain in production produce MORE goods than the equal number of poeple produced in the old (pre Covid times) then the ratio may increase. That may not be even overset by the increase in money supply. Why? Because the quaranteen guarantees a lot of good are not consumed. So there will be a surplus of some goods. Toilet paper is not one of them; but there is more toilet paper being manufactured per person who makes them, than pre-covioid times.

That was a time of burgeoning resources; this is a time of diminishing resources and vastly greater population.

Here is a link to a site that may help you to educate yourself a little: — Janus

You are right about that. I can't argue. The guns and other weaponry was abandoned; full of precious panzer material, steel. Some people all over the world, collected rusted-out old tanks and stuff, and became millionaires when the time came to hunger resources. Coal was used in abundance. Manpower was cheap. The neocolinialist period was at its height. The colonies could be pumped for sugar, rubber, whatever.

And these are only the industrial resources. There were useless resources, as well, lost for Industry: such as gold and diamond mines, a bourgeouning poetry industry, lots of prostitutes in Europe ready for the American soliders, and the budding quantum mechanics industry; the last stalwarts of famous philosophers were in abundance, such as Sartre, Szart-e, Camus, Bertrand Russell, etc. etc. Sophia Loren, Claudia Cardinale, Bridgitte Bardot, Gina Lollobrigida, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and Dyck Van Dyke, for the entertainment industry. The values industry has not swollen, however, very interestingly: the Ku Klux Klan was weakening, there were never more than one popes, and the Dalai Llama was not a household word yet.

It is to do with the process by which one chooses which statements, if any, merit the label of 'true' — A Seagull

I guess the labels are for applying reality to logic.

Peter is John.
John is Paul.
Therefore Peter is Paul

The conclusion is right in logic. The last sentence has a truth value of "true" if the first two statements are also true.

In reality, assuming everyone only has one first name, and these are first names in the example, Peter can't be Paul.

So the truht label is "false".
The logic is not violated, because the first two statements or sentences are also "false".

-------------------------
A Seagull, is this the difference between truth values and truth labels? A value of "true" can be assigned only to a logical statement, and it assumes that the logic is right and the premises are true. The truth label is an application of reality, inasmuch as truth, as an approximation of reality, is questionable; so the "true" statement earns only a label of truth, not a value of truth, to say that we believe it's true, but we would not swear on our mother's grave that it is actually true.

This is what I got out of your explanation and objections. Am I anywhere close to how your system would view it?

Does your system have a special name to it? If I guessed your system correctly, and it has a specific name, would you please give it here? If I am off the mark,then I'm off the market, for names, too. Thanks.