a democracy is advertised as a system where the common people control the policies. brexit is another example, the others may be seen by polling figures, where this is apparently not the case. stop the madness.

not bad for a career businessman, eh?

free speech is a clascically liberal idea, and outside of a classicaly liberal context (with things like a strong, state-run department of education,) it doesn't make sense. bring back the anti-blasphemy laws and forbid hate speech, now that would be a coherent position. also, this seems like a political topic, which i guess i'm not sure if it's allowed or what. certainly at 72 pages it's rockin' and rollin'

bad idea. governments are too corrupt for the democratic experiment to continued ad naseum. it always seemed curious to me why an old greek concept like democracy should be brought up like it's some kind of natural right, when it was a rarity back in the day. the only conclusion is that the united states' declaration of independence was wartime propaganda and that the legitimacy of democracy is something far more fleeting. it's too hard to vote anymore, to be complicit in a farce. institutional power. now that's pretty much self-evident.

lol, yourself. just coming in from reading the sticky it does seem eminently relevant. of course you don't have to answer.

yes, omnipotence does not mean doing all things; it means all powerful. self-contradiction is not power. rather, it is inability.

it's especially important since the definition has changed a lot over a short amount of time and so it's easy to appreciate that others might be using any of a variety of definitions

my best understanding is that atoms of spacetime encompasses vacuums, i.e. a lack of matter or "stuff", and, because atoms are supposed to be matter, that puts a lot of doubt onto whether an atom of spacetime is even a legitimate concept to begin with. (not sure about the concept of einstein's symmetries, but nonetheless that much is basic)

also, "the table choosing a frame," is a bit hard considering that the speaker had just brought up the idea of size when the idea of presence of matter seems to be a lot more crucial. but it only makes sense when considering that the concept of table always means that there is going to be a set amount of stuff in a place, but vacuum again means a lack of stuff, and atoms of spacetime apparently encompasses vacuum to some degree (in whole or in part, not sure).

grasped from an observer that observes

i have to assume that you meant "by an observer" to get a reasonable amount of coherency from this point. otherwise, there are too many objects within the scene. personally, this discussion needs more use of the word "epistomology"! but the play between objectivity and subjectivity does look like it has some merit.

also, isn't buddhism notoriously cagey, especially with regards to desire? i tend to think that any kind of truth that does not have an element of experience taken into account is a bit too tentative, therefore such a strong emphasis on impartiality would take away from the meaningfulness of a thing.

yeah, i've been exposed to christianity a lot and ultimately decided to go with a more coherent belief system based on the holy bible itself. for example, christians will say that god is omnipresent, but then what would be the point of an angel (messenger) if god is right there to begin with? there are many other critiques based on that line, but to the o.p. i'm wondering if this post is even really directed toward somebody who claims to believe what the bible says? because this post could just as easily be directed at somebody who espouses any kind of monotheism. (unless the nt = new testament and m = gospel of matthew, but that much is quite unclear at this point) so please use some more specifics to engage the topic more.

also, the language of "inclusive" seems to be biased towards acceptance out of a grander sense of hospitality as a virtue. would somebody who disagreed therefore be considered unreasonably harsh? i have some ideas as to the topic, were it to be openly explored in a more engaging way, but i'm left looking for that point of entry at this moment.

what definition of racism are you using?