Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it. — Athena

No, significantly it is what religious leaders make it. Religious followers can only follow.

Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter. — Athena

The purpose of religion is to bind groups with a shared narrative, values, etc., not to teach ethics. In fact, religion limits moral development.

There is more to life than antiquated concepts and beliefs.

Are you willing to now throw your hands up in jaded despair, and declare, We are all f*****, we don't deserve to exist, we have failed to be a net positive in this universe and we can NEVER achieve better. — universeness

I didn't say any of that. Accepting that we're animals and unable to control ourselves isn't giving up. Stoicism is realizing that we have all but no control and doing what we can with the little control that we do have.

Speaking of socialism, this guy was in the news the other day for blatantly saying the quiet part out loud...


I guess people like this just want to be kings and fuck everyone else?

Unfortunately, I think that for the best idea to work it requires an enlightened society, and even then the prospects are dubious. Many current trends seem to be anti-enlightenment.

There’s always room for better, and maybe even inevitably better. No one knows if inevitably better is good enough to at least be sustainable though.

You forgot to mention left wing gangsters.

Matter constantly changes but the leaves do so much faster than rocks and neither the leaf nor a stone has the power of moving. So exactly how do you understand the energy of which you speak? — Athena

Both leaf and stone are spinning on the surface of a giant sphere at a thousand miles per hour. They don't fly off of the earth because its mass is so great that it pulls them towards it. The earth is spinning around a star. The solar system is spinning in a galaxy. The galaxy is expanding with the universe... Going the other way, there's a bunch of atomic and quantum movement too, so I'm told.

Trump was determined to be liable of sexual assault by a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers that money could buy, it should be noted. His lawyers would not have allowed biased jurors. Those jurors were convinced that he was responsible.

Is rape not considered immoral in China?

I'm merely saying that… — Hailey

You were trying to rationalize rape, and doing so very poorly. Do you dislike women?

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape. — Hailey

Assuming that past presidents were rapists or worse in order to justify Trump’s crimes is what we call rationalizing in the US. Below is Julia Galif with some helpful tips on spotting and dealing with rationalizing. Hopefully your government will allow you to learn about it.

Complete show trial. — NOS4A2

A Trump supporter would characterize any trial that involved Trump as a show.

“Not only has the Trump Foundation shut down for its misconduct, but the president has been forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his own political gain. Charities are not a means to an end, which is why these damages speak to the president’s abuse of power and represent a victory for not-for-profits that follow the law. Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities. My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the president of the United States.”

If this was a show trial why did Trump make 19 admissions? An innocent man doesn't admit guilt. His abuses were not merely verbal.

It was a sham trial with a sham judge, long past the statutes of limitation, lacking any hard evidence, and in a hostile jurisdiction. — NOS4A2

Again, the point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.

In any case, if Trump had the poor judgment to choose lawyers that bungled jury selection and the rest, it doesn't inspire confidence.

Being found responsible for sexual assault isn't being guilty of sexual assault? Okay, whatever.

The point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.

Note that Trump could afford the best lawyers, not that he ever had the good judgement to pick the best people.

@Hailey Do your countrymen find rapists offputting at all?

Liability isn’t guilt. — NOS4A2

What do you mean?

A jury found him liable or responsible for sexual assault.

One can spend days looking through indictments, criticisms, and books for any wrongdoing that isn’t verbal and come up empty-handed. — NOS4A2

A jury found Trump liable for rape. You know that sexual assault isn't verbal, right?

@Hailey
It's true what NOS says about America, that if you say the correct words and repeat the proper platitudes and don't rape women, try to overturn an election, and break other laws, you won't be prosecuted. No other president in American history sexually assaulted women (that we know of) or tried to overturn an election like Trump did so no other president was prosecuted.

no Chinese would think Biden is a communist. — Hailey

Then they must recognize what a blatant lier Trump is. That’s good. Trump has his supporters here convinced that Biden is a communist. That’s millions of people or at least 30% of the population. Granted we Americans aren’t the brightest bunch.

Again though, it’s odd that your government favors such anti-socialist rhetoric.

No one in China thinks this way. — Hailey

No one in China thinks that socialism or communism is good?

Is there anything else you'd like to know.. — Hailey

You didn't answer my question about why the Chinese government would favor Trump. If anything it seems like they would favor Biden because Biden is supposed to be more socialist. In fact, Trump is constantly claiming that Biden is a communist, and that communism is a VERY VERY bad thing.

The BBC is widely considered an unbiased news source. Here is a BBC article that doesn't show Trump in the best light: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66505804

What happens when you click on the link? Is it blocked somehow?

You're probably right. Perhaps I should not comment so much on Trump since I have only very limited knowledge of him, unlike most of you. — Hailey

Just out of curiosity, how does the Chinese government selectively block internet access to information that puts Trump in a bad light? And any thoughts on why they do that?

BTW, I myself is not a biophysicst. It's just the name of a broad field. — Hailey

Of course.

Yes, he delivered in my filtered view. — Hailey

Hilarious, I didn’t know Chinese biophysicists were so funny. :lol:

I clearly said I don’t consider it [abortion] murder. — NOS4A2

If that were the case I wouldn’t have needed to pull teeth for an answer. Your position is still not clear.

You’re just too strange and laborious to philosophize with, praxis. — NOS4A2

We were never philosophizing.

I have no cut-off. — NOS4A2

You said that a valid excuse is being too young. That means that those not too young do not have a valid excuse and you consider them murderers (unlawful killers). To be clear, saying adults getting an abortion are killers is different than saying adults getting an abortion are murderers. The latter is considered criminal. You used the term "murder" here:

I would not consider it murder because there is a valid excuse for it. — NOS4A2

They say… — NOS4A2

You asked me what my principles said, not what popular opinion said. It's an awkward question, and redundant since I just answered it, but that's what you asked. I did go further though, and you seem to have ignored that part.

None of that is up to me. — NOS4A2

None of any of this is up to us. If you don't want to answer that's fine. I don't care.

I am anti-abortion. — NOS4A2

Until a certain age, apparently. I asked what the cut-off age is. Again, I don't care if you don't want to answer. That is up to you.

What do your principles say? — NOS4A2

They say around 16 weeks. If you're asking which are strongest on this issue it's hard to say. Like you, I'd say that autonomy is high on the list. Unlike you, I'd say that equality is also high on the list. That I look to the norm suggests that I value cooperation and tolerance, perhaps. Could go on and on but I don't see the point.

No, what I consider a valid excuse for abortion is if the unborn is a product of rape or if the mother is too young or if the fetus is malformed. — NOS4A2

In the case of rape, I suppose that it would need to be a proven case of rape, like a criminal conviction?



Regarding age, you're pro-life for adults? What's the age cutoff?

What are your own views on the matter? — NOS4A2

If I were able to vote on it, I guess that I'd go along with 98.3% of the population, around 16 weeks.

I would not consider it murder because there is a valid excuse for it. — NOS4A2

If I'm reading you right, what you seem to consider a valid excuse is that "the unborn is not autonomous". That doesn't make sense. Babies, young children, and those with debilitating injuries or health lack autonomy. Those conditions may be temporary. They certainly tend to be in the case of the unborn.

Are you able to clarify what you consider a valid excuse to kill human life?

So you merely disapprove of killing human life and don't consider it murder. Your libertarian friends will be very very impressed. :starstruck:

As far as i can tell, the task of the pro-abortionists has been to diminish and belittle in the conscience the body of the unborn. To kill it with a clean conscience, for example, one must sneak in and sever its life before this or that occurs, before it has feelings or a heartbeat. At least then will the killer be satisfied with herself and her humanity. — NOS4A2

You're a mind reader?

People make all sorts of choices in life which leave them with a dirty conscience. For instance, I feel bad about using plastic grocery bags whenever I forget to bring reusables to the store. Even if I'm able to somehow rationalize it the feeling remains and my task isn't to diminish and belittle that feeling. My task is to do better.

I have to quell the dissonance and remain satisfied that it isn't up to me wether someone wants to kill the life growing inside of her. I leave that to her, but will always remember that they are killing a life that is not their own, and will judge accordingly. — NOS4A2

Her choice but you judge her guilty of murder? That means you're pro-life. Your libertarian friends will be so disappointed in you. :meh:

I thought the real appeal of Trump for Americans is a promise to address the economical problems right at hand and to alleviate some of the economical struggles for the people. — Hailey

Did he deliver on that promise, in your filtered view?

Funny that you get the filtered image of Trump as a saint and the image of Biden as a demon.

The candidate did not seem fazed by the clashes, tweeting after the rally: "Thank you Costa Mesa, California! 31,000 people tonight with thousands turned away. I will be back!"

The amphitheater capacity is 18k. Does he always double the crowd size? :roll:

Photoshop reality. At least she's consistent. :roll:

He litterally surrendered himself to authorities but the shirts say NEVER SURRENDER! :chin:

Another incongruity, Trump's arrest record states that he is 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weighs 215 pounds. However, as reported in April, after being arrested in an unrelated case in New York, he was 6 feet, 2 inches and weighed 240 pounds—suggesting Trump has gained an inch and lost 25 pounds in little over three months.

My bad. :grimace:

Hi again ChatGPT! I have another question to help my simple-minded friend if you please. Can a question be suggestive?

ChatGPT
Hello again! Of course, I'd be happy to help. Yes, a question can definitely be suggestive. A suggestive question is one that implies a certain answer or a particular way of thinking. It may guide the person being asked the question towards a specific response or conclusion. This type of question can sometimes influence the person's thoughts or decisions, even if subtly.

For example, consider the following question:

"Sally, isn't it true that you enjoy spending time with your new friends?"

This question suggests that Sally does indeed enjoy spending time with her new friends and might make her more likely to answer in the affirmative, even if her true feelings are more complex. Suggestive questions can be used intentionally or unintentionally to influence conversations or gather information in a biased way. It's important to be aware of the wording of questions to ensure that they're fair and unbiased, especially in situations where objectivity is crucial.

I suppose this is what you would call a leading question?

ChatGPT
Exactly! A suggestive question is often referred to as a leading question. A leading question is designed to lead or guide the person being asked toward a specific answer or response. It can sway their perception or influence their opinion on a matter. In legal contexts, leading questions are sometimes used to shape a witness's testimony in a desired direction. However, in other situations where objectivity and fairness are important, it's generally best to avoid leading questions to ensure that the responses obtained are as unbiased as possible.

Most enlightening. Thanks for your assistance!

ChatGPT
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you or your friend have more questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask. Happy learning!

Okay, nevermind then.

Maybe I misread what you were suggesting. You seemed to be suggesting that the lockdowns were designed for the purpose of voter suppression and not for the purpose of saving lives or generally mitigating the pandemic. I pointed out that at one point Trump extended the lockdowns, or at least took credit for doing so, in an effort to save lives. So even Trump thought that the point was mitigating the pandemic.

Anyway, besides all that I still don't get it. Republicans were far more comfortable voting in person than Democrats so employing a pandemic/lockdown to suppress voting would seem to be most effective against Democrats.

Apparently, the lockdowns were supposed to save lives rather than suppress votes. At least Trump seemed to think so.

Would you agree that lockdowns were suppressing votes, then? — NOS4A2

I took a few seconds to google it and this is the first thing that came up:

Trump Extends Coronavirus Lockdown Until April 30

:chin:

:rofl:

It obviously depends on the change. PLEASE READ WHAT THE AI WROTE FOR YOU.