Brent,
I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the
(noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'.
While the nouns (IMO) are not adequately identified the adverbs refer to
the applied system of correspondence.
E.g.: "Fair" to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opp
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> The pyramids made Egyptian civilization immortal. Do you know the names
> of the Indus Valley rulers? Sumerians? Maybe, but they don't have quite the
> ring of Tutankhamen, or Ramses II, eh?
>
The following short scholarly video eloquently defends you
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:03:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > Las Vegas has no function either.
>
>
> Yes it does, Las Vegas functions to make money and give people pleasure,
> the pyramids gave nobody pleasure at the time they were bui
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Las Vegas has no function either.
Yes it does, Las Vegas functions to make money and give people pleasure,
the pyramids gave nobody pleasure at the time they were built except
perhaps for the Pharaoh; and they failed spectacularly in doing what they
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:50:11 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Let's see, average survival of a Las Vegas hotel is what, 30 years? Then
>> they blow them up.
>>
>
> Yes, after that time a Las Vegas hotel no longer serv
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Let's see, average survival of a Las Vegas hotel is what, 30 years? Then
> they blow them up.
>
Yes, after that time a Las Vegas hotel no longer serves a function. The
Egyptian pyramids are quite different in that respect, they NEVER had a
*Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2012-09-05, 00:40:00
> *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
ve to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:28:42
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 04 Sep 2012, at 16:49, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:28:05
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
"... If you are OK to semi-axi
ot;If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 00:40:00
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tuesday, September
st
Time: 2012-09-04, 11:37:36
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
?
> The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought irrelevant
What on earth? are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Le
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:27:18 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 12:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 4,
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> > What struck me is that the "the USE
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the
life
> of the country."
> seem to be exporting
Don't be silly.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
>> of the country."
>> seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
>> Richa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> > What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
> > of the country."
> > seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country."
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every
one. Then
What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country."
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> First to Bruno's response to
>
> (R):3) It's also probably why taxing the ric
On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
*//*
It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist attempt to
distributing richness*. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay
their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of
tr
First to Bruno's response to
*(R):3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimately doesn''t work,
it lowers every body's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down
doesn't work.*
**
*"I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot
work for many reasons. But richne
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:37:37 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>> > The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought
>> irrelevant
>>
>
> What on earth are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and
meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Time:* 2012-09-03, 15:29:14
*Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also proba
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Natural selection is not causal, it chooses [blah blah]
>
"Not causal it chooses" is a contradiction of terms; and natural selection
is causal but the other half of Evolution, random mutation, is obviously
not causal, otherwise it wouldn
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought
> irrelevant
>
What on earth are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Leibniz
were not the sum total of human thought even 300 years ago when they wrote
their stuf
ent -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-03, 15:29:14
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to
he following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:28:05
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
"... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible fo
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
"... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp..."
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the G O D word in a
se
On 03 Sep 2012, at 21:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t
work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distribu
06:47
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
?
F
causality exist in the world of the mind, not in the external world.
In a block universe where the universe is a mathematical manifold,
where time is embedded, and thus has nothing but a local meaning,
causality also has no meaning, except for the living being that go
along a line of maximum gradi
everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 08:28:48
Subject: Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
?
In 1)
2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> so that everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Bruno Marchal
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2012-09-03, 11:06:47
> *Subject
13:38:01
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that
> are not falsifiable.
Popper didn't say everything is falsifiable, he sai
verything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-03, 11:06:47
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper
On Monday, September 3, 2012 1:38:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things
>> that are not falsifiable.
>>
>
> Popper didn't say everything is falsifiable, he said if
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many
reasons. But
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things
> that are not falsifiable.
>
Popper didn't say everything is falsifiable, he said if it's not
falsifiable then it's pointless to subject your valuable brain cells to the
w
Bruno wrote:
*"... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp..."*
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the *G O D* word in a sense
paraphrasable (by me) into an imaginary de
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
?
Falsifiable means "can be falsified". here the gravity can be
falsfied: "you
39 matches
Mail list logo
