ruveyn ben yosef

Whoa there! Do you mean -choosing- to do homosexual acts, or -choosing- to have homosexual longing and lust. We can control what we do. We cannot always control what we feel. Now I am a heterosexual male both in my choice of acts and by my unchosen sexual feelings. I have always liked the girls more than the boys since I was young. What I do, I can control (to a large extent). What I feel is what I feel. It is very difficult to modify one's emotional pattern and structure. My recollection is that my lust and steam heat for the girls was wired in. I did not have to -learn- it. What I did -learn- was who to lust after and who not to lust after. I made a decision fairly early to confine my lust to females who reciprocated my feelings and who I would not mind spending a lifetime with and growing old together. And so it was. I am married 55 years to the same women (and no hanky panky since I was wed). We get along just fine. While I am at it, let me ask do think having children is part of being a "proper" human or is it just a choice? Are those who voluntarily decide on no kids when they can afford to have children totally "proper" or is something lacking? Views on this question differ greatly from person to person. I am just interested in your opinion. ruveyn

The naturalistic view was not easily attained and it took a long time to develop. When life was very hard, very short and in many instances very nasty one can hardly blame people for clutching at a view that at least made some sense of the difficulties. It was only after the beginning of agriculture and the rise of cities and towns that -some- people had the leisure and safety to think things through more clearly. Some time in the 6th century b.c.e. the erosions of the magic view of nature began in several places in the world. Greece was one of these places (along with Babylon, India and China) where some kind of law and regularity based view of the world began to emerge. Being of the West we are most familiar with the emergence of naturalism in Greece. Emergence I say. The process was not complete even in Athens were a residual belief in the gods existed. Fully developed naturalism appeared in Europe in the time of the Enlightenment. It was a long time coming and we should not be too harsh on those who lived before us a long time ago. Al beginnings are hard. Even today, when the thunder is loud and lightning strikes everywhere and nearby many of us experience a frisson of fear. And we know what lightning is. But it still inspires a bit of awe and fear. And when a nearby volcano erupts it is a rare person who does not get a knot in the pit of his stomach. I call that the Holy Shit!!! reaction. It is very natural. Our visceral reactions are not totally under the control of our cerebral cortex. BTW, one says Shabbot Shalom. The adjective in Hebrew, follows the noun it modifies. ruveyn

There is a similar ditty I once heard: I'm a good ol' rebel soldier That is what I am And for you land of Freedom, sir, I do not give one damn I hate your Starry Banner, all soaked with Southron blood, I killed me forty Yankees and I'd a killed more if I could. Of South Carolina where the secession started it was once said: South Carolina: too small to be a Republic, too large to be an insane asylum. ruveyn

Where are the Flying Cars? The Future is not what it used to be. ruveyn

By your reckoning, it would be Warren G. Harding. His worst act was shtupping the White House cleaning women. ruveyn

No, not quite. Concepts have extension and intension. Extension is the set of things that the concept applies to. Intension is the meaning, sense or definition of the concept. Over the course of time extension changes even when intension remains the same. Consider the concept "crow". "Crow" refers to a particular class of birds which changes over time. Old crows die, new crows are hatched. But the definition of the concept "crow" remains. ruveyn

God is not something in the natural order. Does it exist? Does it not exist? There is no evidence indicating it exists? And if one assumes extreme things about this God, such as omnipotence, then one easily derives a contradiction. Here is an old saw: A: You say God is ominipotent? B: Yes, I do. A: You say He can do anything? B: Yes. A: Can this God make a stone so big that He can not lift it? Badaboom. Rim shot. So omnipotence is out, since it leads to a contradiction. And so forth. The problem is, when people talk of God they literally do not know what they are talking about, so anything one says is arbitrary blather. I think the question of God's existence is a pseudo question. Like: does a Fnerd exist? Who knows? Who cares? and What is a Fnerd? If one is going to ask existence questions, then they should be restricted to things whose existence is not prima facia absurd. ruveyn

rational (in mathematical context) means the ratio of two integers. Since the question of whether a negative could be proven was asked without qualification (as to whether the proposition in question is abstract or not) I answered the question in the most general unqualified context. If one permits modus tolens then it is possible to prove negatives in the abstract context. If one wishes to restrict the question to what exists in the real world, then the answer is not so simple. For example, does a magnetic monopole exist? I know of no proof of mathematical contradiction to the existence of a magnetic monopole. On the other hand no one has ever observed a magnetic monopole. A similar question could be asked of tachyons. The existence of tachyons, massive particles that must go faster than the speed of light does not contradict the theory of special relativity, but such a particle would not have a normal existence, one that is forward in time. I am not sure whether this unpleasantness constitutes an outright logical contradiction or not. So far, no tachyons have ever been detected. ruveyn

If you liked -Band of Brothers- (as I did) you will greatly enjoy -Gettysburg-, specially the 20 minutes (uninterrupted) showing Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top. I was sitting with a bunch of Civil War Reenactors of my acquaintance and both they and I were drenched with sweat after seeing that. Whooo! This was much more intense than the portrayal of Pickett's Charge. There is no way that the extent of Pickett's Charge can be presented on screen. It consisted of 13,000 Confederates marching in rank across the gap between Seminary Ridge and Cemetery Ridge. The charge was halted by withering fire of canister and double canister shot that literally blew bodies into small bloody gobbets. There is no way of getting that in a motion picture. 13,000 marched out, only 7,000 came back. After that it was downhill for the Confederacy. ruveyn ruveyn

I'm Spartacus! ruveyn

The only way I can think of proving that a specific thing does not exist is to show that the existence of that thing leads to a flat out logical contradiction. In this way "negatives" can be proven. For example: The square root of two is not rational. You can't get any more negative than that. This says there does not exist a pair of integers m, n where n is not 0 and m, n have no common divisor except 1 such that (m/n)^2 = 2. The way it is done is to assume such a pair of integers m, n exist and infer from that assumption a flat out contradiction. You can find a proof in just about any book on elementary number theory. If you have difficulty in finding one, I will be happy to prove this negative to you. This is different from proving that a generalization is not true. The way to prove the negative of a general statement is to find a specific counter-example to that general statement. Such a proof is "direct", i.e. does not depend on a reductio ad absurdum. To answer your specific question: 1. Define what you mean by God. 2. Show that assuming God (by your definition) exists leads to a contradiction. Q.E.D. ruveyn

I prefer the racetrack of ideas to the market-place of ideas. To find out which idea is the best (or which horse is the fastest) let the ideas compete with each other with regard to their coherence and their conformance to fact. The best idea will win, not because of popularity, but because of its quality. ruveyn

It just occurred to me that one might abstain from politics for the same (or similar) reason that one might abstain from unprotected sexual contact. It is a way of avoiding contamination. The idea of keeping one's genitals or honor unsullied has a certain appeal to it. There is a Yucchh! factor at work. ruveyn

How much investment in refining capacity have you seen? If the refining capacity is limited, then increasing the flow of crude does not help much. ruveyn

How about a simple answer? Religion provides a "mind trick" to help overcome the fear of (physical) death. Many religions promise a continuation of life. Secondarily, religion connects an adherent to something greater or more durable than he. Something that existed before he did and will exist after his physical life is over. It may be delusion, but it is something for the fearful to grasp. ruveyn

Not if you can avoid the consequences of your action. One way of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy or childbirth is to terminate the pregnancy at an early stage before it becomes either a health hazard or a disruption to one's life. Another was is to practice birth control. And yet another way is not to have sexual relations. A zygote or fetus has no rights that the gestating female is bound to respect, so disposing of said zygote or fetus does not constitute rights violation. From an ethical point of view such removal is not any different from removing a tumor (say). ruveyn

Google Joseph Swan, an Englishman who developed the carbon filament incandescent lamp before Edison. Swan's method of making ultra thin cellulose fibers also found application in cloth production. Swan missed out in one important particular: he did not develop a practical method of generating electricity. When Edison lit up lower Manhattan using incandescent glow lamps he not only produced the bulbs, but the generators and the the cable system for delivering power to the end user. Edison produced a -system- and not just a single invention. Nikola Tesla, a Serbian, was Edison's erstwhile partner and later his rival. He developed a better method of generating electrical power (AC) and produced glow lamps that did not require filaments. Tesla's glow lamps worked by the ionization of gas enclosed at very low pressure in a glass envelope. Edison was a better businessman than Tesla, but Tesla was way smarter than Edison. Edison was primarily a dedicated empiricist, who not only did not do theory, but despised it. ("Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration"). Edison was essentially a plodder and a tinkerer. Tesla flew high on wings of thought. ruveyn

Darwin published in 1859 because Alfred Russel Wallace came up with an identical theory. Both men were influenced by prior works in geology (showing that the earth was very old) and orhogenic theories of development and evolution, particularly Lamarck. Ideas about evolution were knocking about for at least a hundred years before Darwin was born. Darwin got the idea of natural selection from what plant and animal breeders do to get specialized variants of natural stock. Ideas do not grow in a vacuum. Darwin had plenty to chew on, from others and from his years of natural exploration whilst aboard The Beagle. Darwin inferred a great deal empirically but he never got hold of the mechanism by which traits are passed from one generation to the next. Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, but Darwin never got around to reading Mendel's findings which were published in an obscure Czeck journal. Mendel's ideas were not picked up while Mendel lived and were rediscovered in the early 20-th century by several biologists including De Vries. Darwin did for biological inheritance and variation what Mendeleyev did for Chemistry. By mostly emperical means Mendeleyev inferred the order among the chemical elements (or many of them) and made good guesses of the properties of elements discovered after his time. Both men got as much as empirical methodology could give. ruveyn

Can an individual in Private City engage the village authority as his legal agent in seeking relief in a tort? Under the that circumstance does the Village have standing in a court of law? Does the Constitution of Minn. grant authority to village government to pursue relief for tort, trespass or misdemeanor, with the effect that when one elects to live there he submits to the local statues and legal authority. Most states allow cities, towns, villages and boroughs to have police forces and courts (to impose fines for breach of local ordinance). As a matter of practicality one would want the legal authority for handling minor torts and trespass to be handled as locally as possible and not require the involvement of people hundreds of miles away to handle essentially local matters. I guess the real question is how private is Private City and how public is the regulatory and legal powers of Private City administration. My personal reaction to Private City's ecological agenda and snooty paternalism is negative. I would not live in Private City if I were paid to live in Private City. A Nanny State is obnoxious whether imposed on one or whether one submits voluntarily (pooh!, feh! shame!). ruveyn Where am I? In the Village. What do you want? Information.

Two men dying of thirst with only enough water for one walk into a bar........ Sorry. I could not resist. If I got a dollar for every time I have heard this Old Saw, I would be rich. ruveyn

I don't see a problem. Fetuses are not persons and only persons have rights. A gravid female is sufficiently developed to be a person. As a person she has the right to control and dispose of anything of her body or (NB) -in- her body. The only constraint is that this disposal does not harm or threaten to harm other persons. The rest follows logically. So what is the problem? What is the question? ruveyn

Please specify what you mean by "real military action against them". Thank you. ruveyn

If there were a crime committed in Private City, I am sure the public police and the courts would have jurisdiction. ruveyn

Toys for the Boys. Enjoy. Objectively speaking, these games are not faithful simulations of anything real in the world. I am an old hand at -real- simulation (pardon the oxymoron). For this you need zillion dollar ueber Cray computers. ruveyn

Keynes was a brilliant mathematician as a young man. He was 12th wrangler in the Math Tripos of Combridge in 1905. The Math Tripos makes the Putnam Examination look like a kindergarten exercise. Later in life he became interested in finances and economics. Keynes wrote a treatise on probability theory which is still highly quoted. Perhaps the world would be a slightly better place if J.M.K. had stayed with mathematics. As a speculator he made and lost fortunes, being set back in the 1929 crash, but he recouped quickly. J.M.K. knew how to make money. Keynes was also an expert historian and scholar. He rescued Isaac Newton's non-mathematical works from obscurity when he purchased Newton's letters and diaries at auction. The material revealed that Newton was an ueber mystic as well as being the inventor of mathematical physics. To put a point on it, Newton was a God Freak, a mystic and an alchemist. The Newton praised by Alexander Pope was more a figment of Pope's imagination than a reality. ruveyn