?

[START]

AAAAAAACCCCCCCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTAATTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTAAATTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTAAAAATTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAATTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCTTGTTTGTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTC

I simply cannot come up with an explanation for this.

Okay, I know you want the good stuff... here it is. Right now, I've got two computers. The two of them are attached to a KVM switch, but for their monitors only. They each have their own keyboard and mouse attached to them.

Anyway, I needed to look for some data on Computer 1, but it was off, so I turned it on and let it boot up. About a minute later, I used the KVM switch to view Computer 1, and it was at the password stage. So, I typed in the password, and it came back with a wrong password message. Between the time I typed my password in, and the time the message came up, I was leaned over, busy doing something. I noticed the keyboard for Computer 1 was leaning against the desk, and that I had to switch keyboards. It was only at that point that I realized that, when I typed in the password for Computer 1, I had been using Computer 2's keyboard!

I typed a password on a computer with a keyboard that was attached to an entirely different computer.

Any thoughts on this, anyone? Personally, I'm really pretty freaked out.

While reading the Bible, you encounter a verse containing a seemingly absurd claim along with an accompanying directive. Let's say, for example, the passage states that blue eyes are a result of a curse having been placed on an evil person who has angered God and earned his contempt, and therefore, anyone discovered to have blue eyes is to be put to death, as this is God's desire, and he specifically commands that it be done. Now, which of the following two possibilities do you believe is the correct, reasonable conclusion to reach:

1) Blue eyes genuinely are a reflection of an evil person under a curse, and God actually did issue a decree to the writer of this particular Biblical verse expressing his desire for the execution of any blue-eyed person encountered. The mere inclusion of the verse in the Bible is sufficient cause for accepting the truth of the claim, and thus, neglecting to follow this command precludes one from being a "true Christian", as they are ignoring God's word.

or:

2) Blue eyes are a normal, natural variation of human eye colour, and the animus towards blue-eyed people included in this particular Biblical verse was added as the result of a fallible human writer's ignorance and fear of that which was unfamiliar to them in an era where things like recessive genes weren't understood. Thus, the decree of death was entirely falsely attributed to God, and not only would it be foolish to think that a just and benevolent creator would actually be so petty as to order the needless and pointless killing of other people over a trivial issue like having an uncommon eye colour, but it's reasonable to presume that God is, in reality, not at all pleased about such bigotry being falsely espoused in his name, or the fabrication and subsequent perpetuation of this erroneous portrayal by those who fail to give what the Bible says any rational examination before making a determination regarding whether any particular verse is genuinely God's inspired word, or the faulty perspective of a flawed human author.

I view any deviation from a hidden variables school to be the scientific equivilent of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Instead of, "I don't understand it; therefore, it must be magic!", some theories of nondeterminsitic mechanics (to which I don't subscribe) appeal to a "(there is no determinable cause; therefore, a cause does not exist"model. I strongly reject this.

I'm looking for the feedback of people who know what they're talking about. Insight is welcome.

I view any deviation from a hidden variables school to be the scientific equivilent of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Instead of, "I don't understand it; therefore, it must be magic!", some theories of nondeterminsitic mechanics (to which I don't subscribe) appeal to a "(there is no determinable cause; therefore, a cause does not exist", model. I strongly reject this.

I'm looking for the feedback of people who know what they're talking about. Insight is welcome.

One of the more frequent questions asked here in R&S is how atheists can be moral without a belief in God. As is often the case with questions that are asked over and over again, I wrote an article on the subject, so that I can just provide a link, or copy-and-paste the pertinent section, whenever the question comes up. The question of atheists being able to tell right from wrong being asked again just an hour ago was my impetus for this one.

The main theme of the article is summed up in its last sentence: "If you do not understand the reason for behaving morally, refraining from causing others to suffer, and being a decent person merely and solely for their *own* sake, there is something *seriously* wrong with you."

The article itself is quite short, and should only take a couple minutes to read. I was hoping for some feedback from other atheists, or theists as well, as to your thoughts on the subject. Do you agree that my analysis regarding atheists' basis for morality is sound? Thanks so much for your time, and, as always, any input is greatly appreciated.

--Alexis

Which one falls off first?

First, we must consider a hypothetical sphere of unspecified and irrelevant physical attributes.  Only a few basic properties matter:

1) It is a physical object.

2) It exists somewhere in the universe.

3) It is solid, or atleast has a solid surface.

4) It is perfectly spherical.

5) Its size is dynamic (explanation below).

So, a completely round solid spherical object... a cue ball from a pool table suffices perfectly for this hypothetical object.  Let us also assume that physical forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and angular momentum are not at work, or atleast that this object is immune to them and they are irrelevant for our purposes; our cue ball is not going to be collapsing under its own gravity or breaking apart due to shearing forces.  Our sphere, for that matter, is not even comprised of atoms or other particles, but is constructed merely from a solid material.  While it exists somewhere in our universe, let us consider it to be indestructible.

And, finally, to the crucial element.  We can take this sphere and increase or decrease its diameter, and thus its radius, circumference, surface area, volume, etc., at will.  Although it really makes no difference, let's assume it begins at the size of a normal cue ball, a few inches in diameter.  From here, we can manipulate it and alter its size down to the diameter of a neutrino or smaller, or up to the diameter of the Milky Way or larger.  We can make it as large or as small as we possibly want.  Now, here is the riddle: As the diameter of a sphere increases, its curvature decreases, and vice versa.  So, what size does our object have to be in order for the surface of the sphere to become *completely flat*?

There is, in fact, despite first appearances and protests to the contrary that I have received in the past, a correct answer, and only *one* correct answer, to this riddle.  In addition, *all* of the information necessary to arrive at the correct answer has been provided here, so I’m afraid no further help or details can be given.  Best of luck!

I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder; I laid them out in stone in case they need the last forever.

You know I won't say sorry.

Apparently, it's some sort of neurological disease called Acronym Formation Disorder. Anyone know anything about it?

Let's say, as a hypothetical, that it's the mid-1960s, and that I'm a white supremacist, a particularly nasty one at that. Not only do I encourage de facto segregation, but I flat-out hate blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as well for that matter. And, more than that, I think that the idea of interracial marriage is one of the most vile possible abominations in the eyes of both nature and God. The notion of a white person marrying a black person turns my stomach, and if a child of mine had so much as a black *friend*, I'd disown them.

Now, I've established myself as the most reprehensible of bigots, and a horrific, contemptible human being. Okay, so far, so good. Here's the question:

*Is* is absolutely *inconceivable* that, despite my incredibly passionate (albeit incredibly warped) perceptions and opinions on race, I, as someone who understands and respects the law, do *not* support legislation that makes interracial marriage illegal? Is it possible that, as distasteful as I may personally find the notion of interracial marriage, and as staunchly as I may oppose the marriages themselves, I *must* from an intellectually honest position acknowledge that other American citizens are entitled to the same protections under the law that protect *me*, and that my individual views are not a valid legal justification for denying other people the rights that the Constitution affords them?

*Or*, do you contend that, because of my personal beliefs, I literally have no choice but to *legally* oppose interracial marriage by resorting to ineffectual tripe, such as meaningless semantic nonarguments ("I don't oppose 'interracial marriage', because there's no such thing; the definition of 'marriage' is a union between a man and a woman of the same race"), pithless witlessisms ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Shaniqua"), personal religious views with no legal weight whatsoever ("interracial marriage is against God's will"; "allowing interracial couples to marry is another giant step in the moral decline of society and the decay of our nation's Christian values"), patently false scare-mongering tactics ("If interracial marriage becomes legal, the government will force churches to perform them against their will"), biological ignorance ("the purpose of marriage is to produce racially-pure babies, and interracial couples are incapable doing this"), appeals to tradition ("society has never accepted marriage between interracial couples before, so we don't have to do so now"), idiotic non sequiturs based on a lack of understanding of the law and other topics ("if you allow a black person to marry a white person, what's to stop someone from marrying their dog next?"), or any other so-called "arguments" that have absolutely no legal or, in most cases, even logical validity?

If you believe the former, that I *can* divorce my personal opinion from my understanding of the workings of the law, then why can't people who oppose same-sex marriage do the same today?

And if you believe the latter, then what makes opponents of same-sex marriage any different than those who opposed interracial marriage in the '60s? They may not display, or even possess, quite the same levels of hatred and vitriol as my hypothetical white supremacist, and in fact I intentionally used the most extreme, hateful personality in order to drive the point, but their fundamental rejection of the principles of equal rights is no better, and their arguments against same-sex marriage are no more legally valid, nor will they be looked upon any more favourably by the next generations than we today look upon the arguments made by the racists in the '50s and '60s, namely because they're the exact same arguments.

There's an issue regarding religious opposition to same-sex marriage that I'm hoping some people who take that position can clarify for me.

When you say that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because it's a "sin", or because "God opposes it", or any other similar argument, are you *unaware* that your personal religious beliefs are not a valid legal justification for denying groups of American citizens the Constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights that the 14th Amendment affords them?

Or do you simply *dislike* this fact?

Being unaware of this fact, or pretending that the fact doesn't exist simply because you dislike it, are the only two logically possible explanations for proposing religious arguments against same-sex marriage. Bear in mind, I am referring here to marriage, the secular legal contract between two consenting adults and the State; the kind performed by a judge in a court of law. The religious matrimonial union that most churches refer to as "marriage" is a completely separate issue and is both entirely immaterial to and beyond the scope of this question.

First, we must consider a hypothetical sphere of unspecified and irrelevant physical attributes. Only a few basic properties matter:

1) It is a physical object.

2) It exists somewhere in the universe.

3) It is solid, or atleast has a solid surface.

4) It is perfectly spherical.

5) Its size is dynamic (explanation below).

So, a completely round solid spherical object... a cue ball from a pool table suffices perfectly for this hypothetical object. Let us also assume that physical forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and angular momentum are not at work, or atleast that this object is immune to them and they are irrelevant for our purposes; our cue ball is not going to be collapsing under its own gravity or breaking apart due to shearing forces. Our sphere, for that matter, is not even comprised of atoms or other particles, but is constructed merely from a solid material. While it exists somewhere in our universe, let us consider it to be indestructible.

And, finally, to the crucial element. We can take this sphere and increase or decrease its diameter, and thus its radius, circumference, surface area, volume, etc., at will. Although it really makes no difference, let's assume it begins at the size of a normal cue ball, a few inches in diameter. From here, we can manipulate it and alter its size down to the diameter of a neutrino or smaller, or up to the diameter of the Milky Way or larger. We can make it as large or as small as we possibly want. Now, here is the riddle: As the diameter of a sphere increases, its curvature decreases, and vice versa. So, what size does our object have to be in order for the surface of the sphere to become *completely flat*?

There *is*, in fact, despite first appearances and protests to the contrary that I have received in the past, a correct answer, and only *one* correct answer, to this riddle. In addition, *all* of the information necessary to arrive at the correct answer has been provided here, so I’m afraid no further help or details can be given. Best of luck!

First, we must consider a hypothetical sphere of unspecified and irrelevant physical attributes. Only a few basic properties matter:

1) It is a physical object.

2) It exists somewhere in the universe.

3) It is solid, or atleast has a solid surface.

4) It is perfectly spherical.

5) Its size is dynamic (explanation below).

So, a completely round solid spherical object... a cue ball from a pool table suffices perfectly for this hypothetical object. Let us also assume that physical forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and angular momentum are not at work, or atleast that this object is immune to them and they are irrelevant for our purposes; our cue ball is not going to be collapsing under its own gravity or breaking apart due to shearing forces. Our sphere, for that matter, is not even comprised of atoms or other particles, but is constructed merely from a solid material. While it exists somewhere in our universe, let us consider it to be indestructible.

And, finally, to the crucial element. We can take this sphere and increase or decrease its diameter, and thus its radius, circumference, surface area, volume, etc., at will. Although it really makes no difference, let's assume it begins at the size of a normal cue ball, a few inches in diameter. From here, we can manipulate it and alter its size down to the diameter of a neutrino or smaller, or up to the diameter of the Milky Way or larger. We can make it as large or as small as we possibly want. Now, here is the riddle: As the diameter of a sphere increases, its curvature decreases, and vice versa. So, what size does our object have to be in order for the surface of the sphere to become *completely flat*?

There *is*, in fact, despite first appearances and protests to the contrary that I have received in the past, a correct answer, and only *one* correct answer, to this riddle. In addition, *all* of the information necessary to arrive at the correct answer has been provided here, so I’m afraid no further help or details can be given. Best of luck!

First, we must consider a hypothetical sphere of unspecified and irrelevant physical attributes. Only a few basic properties matter:

1) It is a physical object.

2) It exists somewhere in the universe.

3) It is solid, or atleast has a solid surface.

4) It is perfectly spherical.

5) Its size is dynamic (explanation below).

So, a completely round solid spherical object... a cue ball from a pool table suffices perfectly for this hypothetical object. Let us also assume that physical forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and angular momentum are not at work, or atleast that this object is immune to them and they are irrelevant for our purposes; our cue ball is not going to be collapsing under its own gravity or breaking apart due to shearing forces. Our sphere, for that matter, is not even comprised of atoms or other particles, but is constructed merely from a solid material. While it exists somewhere in our universe, let us consider it to be indestructible.

And, finally, to the crucial element. We can take this sphere and increase or decrease its diameter, and thus its radius, circumference, surface area, volume, etc., at will. Although it really makes no difference, let's assume it begins at the size of a normal cue ball, a few inches in diameter. From here, we can manipulate it and alter its size down to the diameter of a neutrino or smaller, or up to the diameter of the Milky Way or larger. We can make it as large or as small as we possibly want. Now, here is the riddle: As the diameter of a sphere increases, its curvature decreases, and vice versa. So, what size does our object have to be in order for the surface of the sphere to become *completely flat*?

There *is*, in fact, despite first appearances and protests to the contrary that I have received in the past, a correct answer, and only *one* correct answer, to this riddle. In addition, *all* of the information necessary to arrive at the correct answer has been provided here, so I’m afraid no further help or details can be given. Best of luck!

I've argued with this stance before, and no one has ever been able to refute it.

Please, if there is *anyone* who can (after reading the link this link, in its entirety:

https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/aborti...

), point to some logical refutation of the argument against the free will of the individual, please, do so here:

Let's say, as a hypothetical, that it's the mid-1960s, and that I'm a white supremacist, a particularly nasty one at that. Not only do I encourage de facto segregation, but I flat-out hate blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as well for that matter. And, more than that, I think that the idea of interracial marriage is one of the most vile possible abominations in the eyes of both nature and God. The notion of a white person marrying a black person turns my stomach, and if a child of mine had so much as a black *friend*, I'd disown them.

Now, I've established myself as the most reprehensible of bigots, and a horrific, contemptible human being. Okay, so far, so good. Here's the question:

*Is* is absolutely *inconceivable* that, despite my incredibly passionate (albeit incredibly warped) perceptions and opinions on race, I, as someone who understands and respects the law, do *not* support legislation that makes interracial marriage illegal? Is it possible that, as distasteful as I may personally find the notion of interracial marriage, and as staunchly as I may oppose the marriages themselves, I *must* from an intellectually honest position acknowledge that other American citizens are entitled to the same protections under the law that protect *me*, and that my individual views are not a valid legal justification for denying other people the rights that the Constitution affords them?

*Or*, do you contend that, because of my personal beliefs, I have no choice but to *legally* oppose same-sex marriage by resorting to ineffectual tripe, such as meaningless semantic nonarguments ("I don't oppose 'interracial marriage', because there's no such thing; the definition of 'marriage' is a union between a man and a woman of the same race"), pithless witlessisms ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Shaniqua"), personal religious views with no legal weight whatsoever ("interracial marriage is against God's will"; "allowing interracial couples to marry is another giant step in the moral decline of society and the decay of our nation's Christian values"), patently false scare-mongering tactics ("If interracial marriage becomes legal, the government will force churches to perform them against their will"), biological ignorance ("the purpose of marriage is to produce racially-pure babies, and interracial couples are incapable doing this"), appeals to tradition ("society has never accepted marriage between interracial couples before, so we don't have to do so now"), idiotic non sequiturs based on a lack of understanding of the law and other topics ("if you allow a black person to marry a white person, what's to stop someone from marrying their dog next?"), or any other so-called "arguments" that have absolutely no legal or, in most cases, even logical validity?

If you believe the former, that I *can* divorce my personal opinion from my understanding of the workings of the law, then why can't people who oppose same-sex marriage do the same today?

And if you believe the latter, then what makes opponents of same-sex marriage any different than those who opposed interracial marriage in the '60s? They may not display, or even possess, quite the same levels of hatred and vitriol as my hypothetical white supremacist, and in fact I intentionally used the most extreme, hateful personality in order to drive the point, but their fundamental rejection of the principles of equal rights is no better, and their arguments against same-sex marriage are no more legally valid, nor will they be looked upon any more favourably by the next generations than we today look upon the arguments made by the racists in the '50s and '60s, namely because they're the exact same arguments.

There's an issue regarding religious opposition to same-sex marriage that I'm hoping some people who take that position can clarify for me.

When you say that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because it's a "sin", or because "God opposes it", or any other similar argument, are you *unaware* that your personal religious beliefs are not a valid legal justification for denying groups of American citizens the Constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights that the 14th Amendment affords them?

Or do you simply *dislike* this fact?

Being unaware of this fact or merely disliking it are the only two logically possible explanations for proposing religious arguments against same-sex marriage. Bear in mind, I am referring here to marriage, the secular legal contract between two consenting adults and the State; the kind performed by a judge in a court of law. The religious matrimonial union that most churches refer to as "marriage" is a completely separate issue and is both entirely immaterial to and beyond the scope of this question.

There's an issue regarding religious opposition to same-sex marriage that I'm hoping some people who take that position can clarify for me.

When you say that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because it's a "sin", or because "God opposes it", or any other similar argument, are you *unaware* that your personal religious beliefs are not a valid legal justification for denying groups of American citizens the Constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights that the 14th Amendment affords them?

Or do you simply *dislike* this fact?

Bear in mind, I am referring here to marriage, the secular legal contract between two consenting adults and the State; the kind performed by a judge in a court of law. The religious matrimonial union that most churches refer to as "marriage" is a completely separate issue and is both entirely immaterial to and beyond the scope of this question.

For the past fifteen years, I've been planning to author my final dissertation on the subject of women's reproductive rights. Procrastinator that I am, I continually put it off time and again, but a decade and a half has given me the opportunity to hear, and fairly counter, virtually every argument ever presented supporting the Pro-Life side. About two months ago, inspired by a thread in this very forum, I finally got around to writing it.

So, now I ask for your help. Is there *anyone* who can provide a logical, reasonable argument for why a woman should be denied the right to abort during the first two trimesters of gestation? Bear in mind, I've heard all of the classics before. Not one of them has a single iota of validity to them, and I have detailed in depth the reasons why, so if you're just going to post that "a fetus has soul", or "a fetus is innocent", really, just don't bother. If you are serious about discussing the subject, and providing a compelling answer to my question, it's going to require a fair bit of reading, as the article is about fifteen pages long, and supports a woman's right to abort to a degree as complete as I've been able to accomplish.

If anyone can read this article, in its entirety, and, by the end, *still* conclude that a woman should be denied the right to abort during the first two trimesters of gestation, I would honestly, genuinely be interested in hearing your justification for your position. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate any serious participation.

https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/aborti...