I neither asked nor said that it came from Latin. I said that it can be traced to latin. You said "Nuh uh". But the etymology proves unequivocally that it can. There is no point in quibbling about it.

I expect more of this in the future. Physicalist explanations of consciousness are all pseudoscience. It just hasn't sunk in yet.

The entire field of consciousness is pseudoscience. At best it's folk psychology; at worst it's superstition. I wager that physicalist explanations will come to this conclusion before non-physicalist ones.

Nicely put. I would also the 16th amendment to your list. It relegates plunder and forced labor to a legitimate act of government.

That's the gist of it.

In my view, rhetoric in general promotes the magical idea, that speakers are like sorcerers, and I think this underlying beliefs is one of the distinctions between the sophist and the philosopher. Besides having little evidence to support the magical idea, I think it proves disastrous insofar as it robs the listener of agency and justifies a tyranny.

I don't argue for unconstrained speech—I believe in manners—only that the words are wholly innocent and need not be made out to be something they are not. We need not fear them or pretend that they will push us around should we hear or read them. We need not believe they possess powers and forces they do not. To do so is to weaken people, to relegate them to status of a slave, where the truth is that people have the force and the power to be the agent of their own persuasion.

You don’t think the word “inspire” can be traced back to the Latin word “inspirare”?

inspire (v.)
mid-14c., enspiren, "to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);" also "to prompt or induce (someone to do something)," from Old French enspirer (13c.), from Latin inspirare "blow into, breathe upon," figuratively "inspire, excite, inflame," from in- "in" (from PIE root *en "in") + spirare "to breathe" (see spirit (n.)).

https://www.etymonline.com/word/inspire

There is nothing to echo. Through their grift they reveal their own malfeasance. That’s one thing. But another is that Anti-Trumpism is a license for corruption. By pretending to save the republic, protect our democracy, or whatever the phrase is, they provide their fellow travellers with justification to excuse poor behavior and to support it.

Someone like me gets to sit back and watch as politicians, pundits, and their gullible readers have to turn around and cheer on and defend everything from political persecution, the weaponization of the courts and the justice system, censorship, to spying on political campaigns. It reads like an Orwell novel.

I’m quite looking forward to climate change. I’m not sure what all the doom and gloom is about, but anything that keeps us in the The Holocene is right by my book.

I predict those who are seeking to save us from some impending climate holocaust are going to kill us long before the sun does. My guess is they’ll try darken the skies or poison the atmosphere if they don’t tax us to death first.

Fanny Willis is corrupt. End of story. But it’s a common thread throughout the anti-Trump movement. They reveal themselves to have no moral standing and are often worse than their folk devil. It’s all a grift for power and money and the adulation of millions of gullible news readers.

Persecution 101

Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

Lawyers for the state in Trump’s monthslong civil trial have argued that the principles of fair play in business alone are enough to justify a harsh penalty, but even they aren’t calling for the prospect of liquidation of his businesses and properties raised by a judge. And some legal experts worry that if the judge goes out of his way to punish the former president with that worst-case scenario, it could make it easier for courts to wipe out companies in the future.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

The golden rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Not a fan.

Never heard of it.

Close enough.

I am absolutist in that regard.

He spoke. You don’t like what he says. The eternal desire to shut him up is the sine qua non of anti-Trumpism. His voice—or at least, the excerpts chosen for you by political operatives— is the source of your moral panic, and censoring him is the only cure for your anxiety.

All I know is there is no evidence, just like what you claim to know about Trump. I just disagree with your method of believing things without the evidence to do so.

I think a presidents past is relevant and they should be deeply scrutinized. Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant?

If Trump was buying drugs and prostitutes and engaging in high-level corruption it would be deserving of scrutiny, because all that is criminal activity than none of us plebes could get away with. But I simply cannot care about Trump's pickup skills.

Yes, he's been accused of sexual assault, and all during his foray into politics. I think it is relevant that these sorts of accusations magically appear during such a time, even if it's over 30 years after the fact.

The persecution is wild on this one. Democrat Anti-Trump law-makers invented a law with her in mind. Gave her a year-long window to sue. No evidence of any crime. No guilty verdict or criminal trial. Cannot remember the year or date so cannot give alibi. Won’t allow DNA test of alleged dress she wore. Anti-Trump judge. Lawyers funded by Reid Hoffman and other dark money. Defence not allowed to defend. Arbitrary punitive damages. Law disappears. Bring back statute of limitations. Trump calls the psycho a liar. Sue again.

New York is a shit-hole.

The indictments are a consequence of a two-tiered justice system and politically-motivated prosecutors. There is no evidence of any crime; there are no victims; and the indictments read like deep-state dinner-theater. In my mind one should care a little bit about an unjust justice system.

According to a recent amicus brief Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. He was a private citizen who now has more power than any of the other US attorneys in the DOJ. Unlike the other attorneys he was neither appointed by any president nor approved by the senate. I wonder why that is?

I was just trying to make the point that appealing to law is fallacious. You made an effort to point out to me that laws were broken by rioters, and no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what?

Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?

Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again.

You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.

You’re the one who appealed to law, I’m afraid. Or can you think of any other reason why slavery is wrong without appealing to law?

It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.

They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. They were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct?

It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.

There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so?

Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. That their actions weren’t illegal or that they were just following orders was the same argument the Nazis used to avoid responsibility at the Nuremberg trials. It was also legal to own slaves, to beat your wife, if you’d prefer.

That’s right. I answered your question. I can’t find that they broke any laws. Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity.

You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.

You asked what laws were broken in the coup I mentioned.

It’s clear that laws were broken on J6. What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I'm not sure any laws were broken. The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country, to investigate their political opponents, and to submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories.

I do. I’m not making a case; I’m just sharing my beliefs.

Besides, you and I have litigated the evidence and reasoning already, and the consistent appeals to authority have remained entirely unconvincing throughout. One day I would like to hear your own conclusions rather than someone else’s. Let me know if it ever occurs.

She’s resorting to insults. But that’s OK. The evidence affords greater weight to my characterization than yours, and history will correct the record.

It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment.

Objecting to certification was exactly what congressional democrats did in 2017.

i was an absolute moron.

Fair enough

Your snark doesn’t change the fact you removed most of his argument and filled it with your own assumptions. That’s the way propaganda works, and I was only hoping you wouldn’t allow yourself to be misinformed, and worse, to pass it off as unarguable fact. My apologies.

I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.

Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”

I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.

Is this a full direct quote?

“Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”

They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.

You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like.

His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.

His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, namely, “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”.

You said: “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”

So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other?

I have outlined, twice, how this is a purely logical and sensible conclusion to draw. If you don't see it, that's within you to fix.

So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense?

Of course he’s talking about election fraud. What I’m wondering is how you can get from this quote:

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“

To this assumption regarding his motives:

“Trump wants to suspend the constitution”.

Or his beliefs:

Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.

His clarification directly disputes both assumptions. His absence from any position of power directly disputes even the possibility. So how do you get from one to the other, if not by way of the propaganda of his opponents?

I’m just wondering how one gets from what is quoted to “Trump wants to suspend the constitution” or “Trump calls for the termination of the constitution”. What leads you to take that leap?

Your whole schtick is stoicism but I can only read rank emotion. At any rate, I apologize for sending you off into clown world.

Your problem is the contextomy.

P2 ought to be: Trump believes “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“.

Upon any confusion, good faith demands you seek clarification, not assume motives and attribute to him words he never said.

Just follow your imagination. Works every time.