Doug Morris

Unless their entry is involuntary or physically endangers someone, imposing legal strictures on entry or immigration violates their moral rights to freedom of movement and trade.

So you're wiling to violate people's rights over pragmatic concerns?

Why should any immigration be illegal?

What has Trump actually done, not just said, that constitutes effective opposition to that good old boys club? Criminal actions shouldn't count here, since they are legitimate grounds for prosecution.

If the Democrats are inventing phony charges just to influence the election, why didn't they do this 4 or 8 years ago? Why didn't they do it to the people who ran against Obama or to George W. Bush?

The election tampering in Georgia and inciting the insurrection on January 6 are both attacks on our political system that need to be prosecuted. If there are serious grounds for accusing Trump of recklessness with classified material, that is also pretty serious and may need to be prosecuted. Bragg's prosecution may be iffier, but if there is an ulterior motive involved, it may have more to do with the other three cases and/or Trump's much-greater-than-usual dishonesty than with his being a political opponent.

As long as Trump gets due process and fair trials, these prosecutions do not threaten the rule of law.

The link seems not to work.

Might this be the objective of some of the people pushing EV's?

Sure, we could rewrite the whole thing using only real numbers, but how much additional complication would that create? The more additional complication, the more Occam's razor would say that is not the way to go.

Apparently Tucker Carlson cherry-picked from a lot of video, Multiple sources indicate that the "shaman" entered the Capitol without permission, was repeatedly asked to leave, and was not accompanied the whole time. But the police were badly outnumbered and couldn't do much until reinforcements arrived.

I am reminded of a thread a while back in which someone on this forum admitted his emotions were telling him to murder his wife, and he was having a hard time getting it clear in his mind that this would be wrong. Fortunately he had enough awareness that something was wrong there to come here for help. (I don't think you'll be able to find this thread because it was hidden in the archives to make sure school bullies or other bad actors couldn't use it to identify his son.)

I read this article. (The first article had a barrier to reading it.) It is misleading to say that Wigner's detection of a superposition indicates there was no measurement at all. What it indicates is that there was no measurement whose result was detected by Wigner or his equipment. There is no contradiction between the two views. In my view, the talk about how things only become real when measured conflates measurement conducted deliberately by a reasoning entity with the more general category of interactions that force something into a particular state.

Couldn't Russia seizing Crimea, or even getting ready to, reasonably be taken as an indication that more war was possible in the future and that Ukraine needed to be better prepared?

Can you email him to let him know you rescinded the ban?

Stephen, Please respond to the following: The stick looks bent, but concluding that it is bent is a matter of interpretation or inference. If we move the stick so that a different amount of it is in the water, the look of a bend changes its position on the stick. If we feel the stick with our fingers, it does not feel bent. Thus collecting a more thorough set of perceptions gives a more nuanced set of perceptual data.

My late wife introduced me to a recipe she called lazy man's fried chicken. You coat the chicken with bread crumbs and bake it in a pan sprayed with cooking spray. To me, it works pretty well.

What exactly does this mean?

We create volitional entities with minds of their own when we have children and raise them past infancy. Why can't we create them some other way?

The implication of all this is that "free will" should not be axiomatic. That is can be created, or that it does have a reason. Free will and consciousness are axiomatic in the sense that, for any individual, the knowledge that that individual is conscious and has free will is implicit in and logically prior to any non-axiomatic knowledge. This does not mean that free will and consciousness do not have causes that bring them into existence. They do have causes that bring them into existence.

The stick looks bent, but concluding that it is bent is a matter of interpretation or inference. If we move the stick so that a different amount of it is in the water, the look of a bend changes its position on the stick. If we feel the stick with our fingers, it does not feel bent. Thus collecting a more thorough set of perceptions gives a more nuanced set of perceptual data.

It seems to me that the Turing test begs the question. If an interrogator can't tell whether an interrogatee is machine or human, does this mean it must have the essential capabilities of a human, or does it just mean that the interrogator doesn't know enough about how to tell?

You don't need to phrase it like it would be wrong or improper if American crews were operating them. And besides, it doesn't eliminate moral responsibility. Sure, indirect support through arms or funding shows less of a commitment than direct involvement, it still shows intention to harm Russia - which is a good thing. I was responding to Jon Letendre accusing Biden of hypocrisy.

Will they have American crews? I don't think so.

I don't support keeping ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE locked under house arrest for any reason. The point I am trying to make about peanut butter is that it is irrelevant as an example because people know it contains peanuts and can avoid it.