Virginia declares state of emergency after armed militias threaten to storm capital

[Phenomanul]

So, your spidey-sense tingled and that's that?

Couldn't have been a jealous co-worker who maybe, saw you surfing/posting at work?

What is it with your constant need to smugly undermine my claims? Your constant need to defend your leftist crew cause they couldn’t possibly be s in real life? “Oh no, that’s not it, Pheno must obviously be imagining the attempt to get him fired.” There was obviously more in that email... enough to know it originated with a political forum resident. Not to mention a complaint from a coworker would not have mentioned my SpursTalk handle or would not have addressed the HR manager as “To whom it may concern”. The context was conclusive enough - of course, stuck in the pettiness of it all the informant was too much of a coward to even sign their own name. They sent it in as an anonymous tip.

[koriwhat]

And then you proceed to lie.
We are self absorbed but he is more than willing to spew garbage he can’t back.
If I came up with the above and proceeded to criticize Trump koriwut gives birth to a cow.
The amount of misrepresentation and flat out lying, this what Trump has made acceptable to the Trump s. Far right Koriwhat claiming far left attack when liars are ferreted out. The far left goes after liars, wow that’s sad.

lol i'm far right because you try your hardest to act like you sit at top of the hill. get off your soap box already... i try to keep the peace with you because i view you as somewhat level-headed but i'm not sure with you any longer tbh.

you withhold your insults until you feel the need to spew them all out in one post like you did above.

So, your spidey-sense tingled and that's that?

Couldn't have been a jealous co-worker who maybe, saw you surfing/posting at work?

give me a break... you s here have endlessly tried and have doxxed me even before i said idc and come at me. i'd lay odds it was one of you weak s here on ST who ed with Pheno just like yall try to with me.

[koriwhat]

koriwhat, ChumpDumper, Winehole23, Phenomanul, Th'Pusher, Blake, weebo, SnakeBoy, Chucho

the same ol' crew time and time again... go figure.

[Winehole23]

What is it with your constant need to smugly undermine my claims? Your constant need to defend your leftist crew cause they couldn’t possibly be s in real life? “Oh no, that’s not it, Pheno must obviously be imagining the attempt to get him fired.” There was obviously more in that email... enough to know it originated with a political forum resident. Not to mention a complaint from a coworker would not have mentioned my SpursTalk handle or would not have addressed the HR manager as “To whom it may concern”. The context was conclusive enough - of course, stuck in the pettiness of it all the informant was too much of a coward to even sign their own name. They sent it in as an anonymous tip.

Fair enough.

I wasn't aware that you had the "Spurstalk leftist crew" in mind, so I wasn't aware I was defending them. Religious disputes don't always break down along neat ideological lines.

There's no shortage of assholes and kooks all over the political spectrum in this forum who might have an axe to grind with a poster who's outspokenly religious, but it's clear you blame "leftists" for everything, so leftists it is and always will be, eternally sinning against you personally and all you hold dear.

[Blake]

koriwhat, ChumpDumper, Winehole23, Phenomanul, Th'Pusher, Blake, weebo, SnakeBoy, Chucho

the same ol' crew time and time again... go figure.

KW wants so badly for pheno to make him some room up on that cross.

Jesus you guys are pathetic

[koriwhat]

KW wants so badly for pheno to make him some room up on that cross.

Jesus you guys are pathetic

i'm not here for e-friends like you are blaKKKe. you trying to make this out to be anything other than myself calling pussies like yourself out just proves how ing insecure you are and how right i am.

btw we're pathetic? last time i checked i didn't sit by while a lady of mine was getting elsewhere. pathetic is a word saved for gots like yourself.

[boutons_deux]

Phenomanul's "side"

'White Power' and a swastika spray-painted on newly opened Sikh temple in Orangevale, California



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1911508

Has anybody from he lefies' side spray painted Christian churches?

[koriwhat]

Phenomanul's "side"

'White Power' and a swastika spray-painted on newly opened Sikh temple in Orangevale, California



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1911508

Has anybody from he lefies' side spray painted Christian churches?

actually yes, a jew did back in what 2016 or beginning of 2017. a black dude too and a few others. go figure a dip like yourself would dismiss their bull .

[ElNono]

Ah there it is... the “you can’t be considered an intellectual unless you also give up your faith-based beliefs” argument. “Since your belief in GOD makes you intellectually inferior THEN your position on other matters is also dubious - no, flat out wrong”. “Ergo your entire position on matters must be discarded and ignored and ridiculed...”

The arrogance of that position, and your inability to contemplate the millions of counter examples to that belief is why ultimately, we cannot discuss anything here. That’s the delusion here and it goes beyond cognitive dissonance. Your assumption will always be that your position is the correct one and that mine is faulty or irrational. What I’m trying to point out is that my life experience by and large negates, in an absolute manner, the social paradigms that your belief system perpetuates as being true. The dynamic is one that you all conveniently want to ignore because “a successful home” IS the ultimate metric by which personal choices are validated or not. And because most of my life choices come from a conservative position you and none of the other leftist pontificators here want to acknowledge, or even give credence to the notion that your leftist world view may not be as great as you deem it to be. It may not be the only path.

This whole thing started simply because your leftist gang was going on about Trump supporters being violent - and like always trying to paint us all with that brush. My position was that there are leftist folks who are also violent. I then proceeded to suggest that all of them should be investigated. Instead of everyone agreeing on this centrist position my post predictably gets attacked because people know my world view is conservative and therefore I can’t be allowed to have a rational point that holds any merit whatsoever. The pettiness here over semantics and whether or not I reply in short phrases or paragraphs is beyond ridiculous. The dogma here has blinded people from even agreeing on centrist matters - it’s an incredible dynamic but also a sad reflection of how bad the schism in ideologies has degraded one of America’s core values (the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe and to let others do so).

The end game for leftist thought is fairly clear to me. You all ultimately want control of the government to force people to believe as you do because that type of society makes sense to you. Unfortunately for your cause, there are millions of Americans that will not bow down to that ideology and will not relinquish the freedom to raise their families as they see fit.

No, really, I didn't say any of the bolded. I was very precise in what I said, which you clearly don't want to touch (otherwise you would have), because you know what I said is empirically correct. However, the bolded does show what you tell yourself to justify that dichotomy, and that's certainly your choice.

Your life experience, as exceptional as you claim it is, statistically grades as nothing more than an anecdote. The notion that what worked for you would work for everyone else obviates the fact that humanity has studied factors for success for a very, very long time, with a mul ude of sciences (sociology, psychology, economics, etc) and the actual hard numbers show that the odds of the median citizen being successful in this country directly correlate to things like the socioeconomic position of their closest ancestors. Now, you can yell everywhere that's not what you experienced, and I'm an exception to that rule also, but our exceptions to the rule doesn't change the rule. We show the exception is possible, but statistically we're still an exception.

Heck, what you just told us about the education you're able to provide to your kids, spending hours educating them, directly correlates to the fact that you have a good job that pays well, and you can take that time with them, whereas (unfortunately) the parents working 2+ jobs, living paycheck to paycheck cannot afford. Do your kids have better odds of being successful? sure. Does your current socioeconomic condition has a large say in that? you bet.

And lastly, regarding your last paragraph, it's ridiculous and completely unfounded. Alternacy in this country lately has been as good as ever. Conservatives clearly are not in extinction. Sure, the world in general has continued the trend of the last century of culturally evolve towards more progressiveness, but clearly that doesn't mean that people automatically vote progressives or to the left. It just means that conservatives will have to reinvent themselves in some areas to make themselves more appealing (I mean, look at Trump, he's basically completely socially liberal), which I'm sure they will.

Honestly, as much as you try to indoctrinate your kids and keep them from seeing what the outside world looks like, it's only a matter of time until they go out there and start picking an choosing what they like or don't like, and be who they want to be.

[ElNono]

At the time I was in discussions with two forum members over the implications of the use of imaginary numbers in the "grand unified theory" as a means to negate the observable truth that time started at some point in the past at t = 0… it's a tactic employed by Stephen Hawking to avoid adopting a position that essentially mirrors the long standing belief held by Deists everywhere that acknowledges that a Creator originated what we now call the "big bang". The implication being that the universe had a beginning. One can't traverse an infinite past to arrive at the present. The whole point of that discussion was to get him to agree that the views that he personally adopted to toss out the belief in a Creator were largely based on mathematical sleights of hand that had no real bearing in the physical world. Belief in multiverses or other theories that attempt to subvert the implications of t = 0 require faith, because they fall outside of the testable realm of the scientific method.

Anyway, I have a hunch on who it was, because that discussion dragged on for weeks and he was visibly irritated.

Next thing I know I get a comical email from my manager telling me that someone had sent an email to our HR manager complaining that I was "spending too much company time on an internet forum". My manager largely shrugged it off because I basically told him I would "produce just the same" if I came to the office for two hours or twelve. She agreed. To this day I have complete autonomy over the use of my time. The matter was very serious either way because this person tried to inflict harm on me and my family. His actions crossed a line.

Well, that's ty. Glad it worked out for you, but yeah, plenty of stupid people on the interwebs.

[ElNono]

Let me open another can of worms: The notion that positing a theory requires 'faith' is completely incorrect, and also falls squarely outside of the scientific method. A theory is quite simply an attempt to rationally explain a phenomenon that is otherwise unknown, including testable methods or predictions. It never relies on faith or dogma. That automatically makes it non-scientific.

A good example is Einstein's theory of general relativity. Even nowadays we're still conducting tests he predicted would have a certain outcome (and we clearly couldn't test when he presented the theory). See:

https://www.space.com/supermassive-b...elativity.html
https://www.space.com/41077-einstein...ives-test.html

He didn't use 'faith' to predict those outcomes, he applied his theory to different scenarios (even if they couldn't be tested at the time) and derived what the outcomes should be if his theory was correct.

[Blake]

Let me open another can of worms: The notion that positing a theory requires 'faith' is completely incorrect, and also falls squarely outside of the scientific method. A theory is quite simply an attempt to rationally explain a phenomenon that is otherwise unknown, including testable methods or predictions. It never relies on faith or dogma. That automatically makes it non-scientific.

A good example is Einstein's theory of general relativity. Even nowadays we're still conducting tests he predicted would have a certain outcome (and we clearly couldn't test when he presented the theory). See:

https://www.space.com/supermassive-b...elativity.html
https://www.space.com/41077-einstein...ives-test.html

He didn't use 'faith' to predict those outcomes, he applied his theory to different scenarios (even if they couldn't be tested at the time) and derived what the outcomes should be if his theory was correct.

[FALLACY TEXTWALL]I REALLY MEAN IT I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS[/FALLACY TEXTWALL]


in 3...2..

[koriwhat]

i guess dip bouts isn't going to come back in here and back up his lame claims about swastikas and hoax's... i wonder what his rawdog.com outlet has to say?

[boutons_deux]

less mother ers, gulled by BigGun propaganda to believe their manhood depends on guns

Virginia city official brings AR-15-style rifle to council meeting – triggering some colleagues

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-city-official-brings-ar-15-style-rifle-to-council-meeting-triggering-some-colleagues

How sick is a country obsessed with violence, hate, guns, a flag, idolizing the corrupt, $Ts-blackhole military that can't win ?

[koriwhat]

less mother ers, gulled by BigGun propaganda to believe their manhood depends on guns

Virginia city official brings AR-15-style rifle to council meeting – triggering some colleagues

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-city-official-brings-ar-15-style-rifle-to-council-meeting-triggering-some-colleagues

How sick is a country obsessed with violence, hate, guns, a flag, idolizing the corrupt, $Ts-blackhole military that can't win ?

more bull posts while never acknowledging your own bull i called out. the MO of a ing re loon like yourself boots.

[DMC]

Let me open another can of worms: The notion that positing a theory requires 'faith' is completely incorrect, and also falls squarely outside of the scientific method. A theory is quite simply an attempt to rationally explain a phenomenon that is otherwise unknown, including testable methods or predictions. It never relies on faith or dogma. That automatically makes it non-scientific.

A good example is Einstein's theory of general relativity. Even nowadays we're still conducting tests he predicted would have a certain outcome (and we clearly couldn't test when he presented the theory). See:

https://www.space.com/supermassive-b...elativity.html
https://www.space.com/41077-einstein...ives-test.html

He didn't use 'faith' to predict those outcomes, he applied his theory to different scenarios (even if they couldn't be tested at the time) and derived what the outcomes should be if his theory was correct.

It happens a lot on this forum and elsewhere. Equivocation of the word "faith" to mean the complete confidence in someone or something (in this instance it's the scientific process) on one hand, but then to mean belief and trust in God on the other. El Nono is correct, a person with zero faith in the scientific process would arrive at the same result as a person with absolute faith in the scientific process if they both adhered to the scientific method, given the same experiments. The difference is that one person won't research things using the scientific process if they lack faith in it, or they might see it in direct conflict with their faith in a god.

What if a person who professes faith and belief in a god were to find something that contradicted their belief using the scientific method? This is where the road forks - the interpretation of the data. A science minded theist must, of necessity, be on the retreat intellectually to keep the faith in god intact. This is why atheists often struggle to accept the claims of impartiality and adherence to the scientific method.

[ElNono]

It happens a lot on this forum and elsewhere. Equivocation of the word "faith" to mean the complete confidence in someone or something (in this instance it's the scientific process) on one hand, but then to mean belief and trust in God on the other. El Nono is correct, a person with zero faith in the scientific process would arrive at the same result as a person with absolute faith in the scientific process if they both adhered to the scientific method, given the same experiments. The difference is that one person won't research things using the scientific process if they lack faith in it, or they might see it in direct conflict with their faith in a god.

What if a person who professes faith and belief in a god were to find something that contradicted their belief using the scientific method? This is where the road forks - the interpretation of the data. A science minded theist must, of necessity, be on the retreat intellectually to keep the faith in god intact. This is why atheists often struggle to accept the claims of impartiality and adherence to the scientific method.

A process isn't necessarily based on dogma or faith, though. It's simply a set of rules that define it. Failing to apply those rules simply means you're taking a different approach or process. The reason that the scientific process is deemed highly has to do with being proven time and time again to reach satisfactory, reproducible and rational resolutions to problems. It doesn't mean there's no better process, just that it's the best process we know so far to advance the sciences.

I also don't see a problem with a scientist being a religious person in the vast majority of areas. This is because science is extremely diverse and research is normally done in what can only be described as micro areas. The issue is when some of these people apply the god of the gaps fallacy (very common at every level, but scientists should know better) on the things they don't understand or are unknown at the time. That's faith and dogma creeping in and it's nether rational or scientific.

[TheGreatYacht]

President Donald Trump Says Take Guns 'Early' Without Due Process | CNBC


Who remembers

[DMC]

A process isn't necessarily based on dogma or faith, though. It's simply a set of rules that define it. Failing to apply those rules simply means you're taking a different approach or process. The reason that the scientific process is deemed highly has to do with being proven time and time again to reach satisfactory, reproducible and rational resolutions to problems. It doesn't mean there's no better process, just that it's the best process we know so far to advance the sciences.

I also don't see a problem with a scientist being a religious person in the vast majority of areas. This is because science is extremely diverse and research is normally done in what can only be described as micro areas. The issue is when some of these people apply the god of the gaps fallacy (very common at every level, but scientists should know better) on the things they don't understand or are unknown at the time. That's faith and dogma creeping in and it's nether rational or scientific.

But scientists aren't so naive as to not understand the implications of the findings, even in micro areas.

[ElNono]

But scientists aren't so naive as to not understand the implications of the findings, even in micro areas.

Sure, but unless it provides irrefutable proof against the deity's actual existence, then it's not insurmountable. You just feel a bit disappointed and move on (unless you were Galileo, in which case persecution followed. Thankfully we evolved from that).

[Winehole23]

What if a person who professes faith and belief in a god were to find something that contradicted their belief using the scientific method? This is where the road forks - the interpretation of the data. A science minded theist must, of necessity, be on the retreat intellectually to keep the faith in god intact. This is why atheists often struggle to accept the claims of impartiality and adherence to the scientific method.

Disagree.

The Thomistic tradition is a forerunner of modern science. In it, science and belief vary schematically, they take different objects. There's no necessary contradiction between science and faith there, as has been well understood -- and taught -- in Roman Catholic pedagogy for centuries.

[boutons_deux]

Faith in a God (there's more than one, with the Christians swearing that their God is the only one. Muslims, Hindus gods are bull ) serves what purpose to an individual?

[pgardn]

Pretty sure I never said anything of the sort. Your entire argument rests on proof by assertion.

Wrong.
Based on what you implied in the discussion environment is passed on genetically.

So for your old terms.

Nature is DNA (and RNA is some viruses).
Nurture is the environment that acts on the cell or cells via the DNA (not only instructs, but is passed on). The environment can also change the genetic material (DNA), known as mutations in an individual cell or cells, and the genetics (DNA) of and entire population (thru natural selection, etc...)

Your statements regarding the above indicated you do NOT understand this. And thus my assertion based on your science is perfectly valid.
I can go through it if you wish.
But you are busy, and so am I.
Respond if you wish and I will walk you through it.
I really dont think you want that. Your choice.

[pgardn]

But scientists aren't so naive as to not understand the implications of the findings, even in micro areas.

Science before it was called so, was disproving common religious beliefs almost for the entire history in which we have human thought in writing.
Science uses known mechanisms to explain events, by its very nature it cannot invoke anything that involves the supernatural otherwise you are not doing science.

Scientists understand that creating new models that come with new findings lead to even more questions that go unanswered by science but might be answered in the future. So its completely ignorant to compare two very different ways of explaining the world around us.

Of course scientist can believe in a God, they just cant use God to explain scientific phenomena. Dont see the problem here except that people are hung up on religious over reach by humans that science says we got an explanation that does not involve the supernatural. When science starts to poke around with the supernatural, you cease doing science.

[boutons_deux]

clever fellow, actually INCITING and GUARANTEEING that his own 'white supremacists" voters to show up

Virginia's top House Republican warns "white supremacist garbage" to stay away from gun rally

said on Saturday that

white supremacists and any other groups

trying to spread “hate, violence, or civil unrest”

were not welcome at a pro-gun rally in the state’s capital on Monday,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-rally/virginias-top-house-republican-warns-white-supremacist-garbage-to-stay-away-from-gun-rally-idUSKBN1ZH09W?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&u tm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign= Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics +News%29