shirgall

Does anyone else remember Balance of Power? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_(video_game)

Besides the obvious innuendo?

That you can assert that any science is unquestioned baffles me. All of fundamental physics is questioned regularly by students. The ones that are really good come up with new ways to test old theories. Sometimes they garner incredible insights in the process. They are encouraged to do so, strongly, by everyone in the scientific community. I don't trust the state any further than I can throw it, but there's no compelling reason to disbelieve atomic fission, atomic power, and atomic bombs. I think that those that look too hard for a conspiracy can find it in any topic they want, when the more logical explanation is simple: poor photographic technology (compared to modern days), the strenuous effort to keep the atomic secret from getting out to our enemies, and the enormous cost of testing such technologies.

I find the entire premise that nuclear weapons can't exist insulting.

Just figured we all needed a reminder of the biggest thermonuclear fireball evidence around...

Another one is The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant. http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Will-Durant-ebook/dp/B00873GLOQ/

And I've presented evidence which you reject. You've presented no evidence that contradicts.

Because the cultural narrative requires them to live under bridges and therefore subject to continual oppression, it is no longer inoffensive to use the term "trolls". We are now require to refer to them as "cognitive dissidents". Please make a note of it.

Where did I say that?

Your previous assertion was that "Materialists say everything is material." I pointed out this was not an applicable simplification.

Materialists don't say concepts are material, they just feel that real things you can touch are more important than the so-called spiritual values. to them concepts don't "exist", but they can still be talked about by materialists. Your analogy doesn't really apply.

Moribundity more like.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112.full.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151101/23483432691/our-founding-fathers-used-encryption-so-should-you.shtml

Yes, my construction was clumsy, and you are right in that every day the theories of gravity and evolution get more evidence that they are the correct interpretation... I was trying to shine a light on the difference between the incomplete definition of faith and what a better definition needed to include.

Your definition lacks something. Specifically, it lacks the fact that there is no disproof of evolution, but there's disproof of religions that presume characteristics of a deity that cannot logically exist. A definition of faith should encompass this distinction. Gravity and evolution are not proven, but we'd be wrong to act as if they are not reasonable, sufficient, and operable theories on how the universe works.

Arriving at common definitions of terms is a necessary pre-requisite to rational argument. If you didn't like the definitions, you are free to disagree and offer your own interpretation. For example, you are using the term "faith" in a fashion that is not common, and certainly not in a way I agree with. Therefore, we cannot have a rational discussion about "faith".

Manslaughter, otherwise known as negligent homicide, is reckless endangerment like what I described that does lead to someone's death. IF it could be considered reckless to be driving at too high a speed and it resulted in someone's death (whether or not you had a chance to pull a handbrake once the error had been detected) then it's manslaughter either way. If it could be proved that it was deliberate that you could have prevented a death but didn't, that's murder. If you park on a steep, slippery hill it could be considered reckless to not turn your wheels into the curb and put on your handbrake... as a loose car careening down the hill is likely to kill or grievously harm someone if they got run over by the car. You're deep into "you should have known better" territory here. Is this really the test case you're looking for? https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/02/prescribing-patients-the-drugs-they-want

Related: http://www.snopes.com/gun-murders-per-100000-residents/

If you knowingly do something that is reckless enough that is likely to cause the death or serious injury of another, it's force. Look at the kinds of things that are considered "reckless endangerment": driving too fast for the conditions on a crowded road or residential neighborhood, target shooting with a population center as your backstop, giving dangerous drugs to someone whose medical history and allergies are unknown, throwing rocks at cars on the highway from an overpass...

These are great and look like a lot of work. Thanks for producing these!

Celebrities support socialism because it is profitable to do so. Socialists support celebrities because they are marketing multipliers even if they are imperfect conduits of "the message".

This is a great video. I've shared it all over the place.