the OP (opening Post), if I understand it correctly. As from what I know the march for science is about the application of science on global warming. I'd say what they're up to is the acceptance of science to slove (also solve) the matter not corporate  influence in government to thwart or discount the science. My opinion is, the world of man's own making has got us trapped. If we keep going as is (the profit margin is all, theory) we'll eat ourselves to death. IE. The southwest dessert regions are being eaten up by the  square mile at a gulp. The planet needs vast natural areas to maintain the stablity of the eco systems that all the elites make their money off of, and creates the jobs we need. bear in mind---what we have going for ourselves is an artificial system that encroaches on the natural. I think this is what the science marches are about. But, it's to late, we can't change the system we invented---there's to many people already and the system as is - is needed to maintain the dinner table. It's a no winner. There is no science that can win this---it's science that got things as is. As I've pointed out before---intelligence is the enemy.There's no such thing as "counter science". If so, it relys on the use of the natural also and----- it' would cause the same effects as we have now.
 

Is, an item is not made by intent. The universe has no intent, but, we are intelligent, right. The universe didn't intend to create anything intelligent it is merely a development by evolution of a bio structure.

A stem locomotive was not created by the universe directly, but rather by intent of what it created that became intellegent. That is to say, the universe didn't purposely create a locomotive. There-fore a locomotive is not a natural concoction. Of course it has to be understood that all is of the natural or a decendent of the natural, but, we use the tern unnatural to decern an item that wasn't automatically made by the universe of which it cannot do. So, an item devised by intent is considered unnatural. It is mainly used for refernce rather then fact of nature. SDuch as, Blaks Law Book-- in it's discription of a naural or artificial person. In this case a natural person is directly of nature while a person of civilization is considered an artificial person be cause it's mental faculties are interferd with by an intellegent force, mainly "government mandate" to form the perso to government social; standards.

IE, A person being intellegent can plumb a house and remain a natural person. A person who is seen or designated a "plumber" is an unnatural person. In the first instance the person has not been formed (in this case "person" is the mental not the physical) by the will of an inventor. While in the second case the person is seen as the physical and the mental is formed by intrusion of another persons will. It's a matter of government made verses natural made, and of course government also includes religion.

Persons formed by nature are considered natual. Persons deliberately formed by other persons to fit a particular making a mandate of officials are artificial. The artificial person is normally in intelligent societies formed for a materialphysical purpose--the same as the locomotive. It's the process to produce "persons" to be opertors of a machine---their own body. It's a matter of how society preferes to see others, as a plumber is a machine (prime mover, locomotive). In the other case a prime mover yes, but not seen as a machine. It's all a matter of how one is seen or determined by society. Civil societies see each other as "net gain" and in accordance with physical values, while in the othjer it is the mental values that are the person. Blaks Law Book confirms this, (as how the world sees it's inhabitants) as it is the "mind" that is changes not the physical. So there-fore then, Blacks Law Book sees "person" as a "mental" not a physical. But yet, the value of person is placed on the physical because it's the physical that is needed to gain by the labors of each other. ( A predatory system) Perdators see bodies not minds. But of course, the mind is still in the game, it's merely controled by others outside one's mind./self. While all things stay within the natural realm, it's matter of what "we" do with it that makes the difference.

True, all things are derived from nature. But if you go to blacks law dictionary they have artificial person. What does that mean to a lawyer. Hence--a person concocted by the will of an authority, is basically what it means. So, what you're saying is--the world is illogical. I concurr. It's authorities that decide what is and what isn't, whether they be right or wrong. It's their will that's happening on the planet, would that be so?. What the law dictionary is saying is---if it's tampered with by man it becomes artificial , iow unnatural. If you go back to a previous discussion on corporations---corporations are an artificial person. The "authorities" can make something into whatever they need it to be to acheve an end. I'm not questioning your reasoning, I'm questioning theirs.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?

Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

What is NATURAL LAW?

A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings, established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept Webster. The foundation of this law is placed by the best writers in the will of God, discovered by right reason, and aided by divine revelation ; and its principles, when applicable, apply with equal obligation to individuals and to nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 2, note; Id 4, note. See Jus NATURALE. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This expression, “natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered “according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a “state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational etc etc etc etc 

I'm sure you'll notice the religious incorporations in this statement. What this means is- government has the (or assumed it) right to soley decide what something is or isn't. On the mental basis Goc can spin straw into gold if they nake it a law. As the saying goes, those who control the meaning of words control society/people. We all know that straw is not gold, but, they can get ignorant followers to believe it is --if ---they can find a reason to explain it----which they always can. IE- campaign contribitions are still a bribe, but it's used to negate bribery and the massed stupidly follow the reasoning--because the unsupecting massed cchose them to make the determinations.

There's no such term in the law book defining "human"--so it is not a legal word in it common use. Technically, if the prosecution uses the word "human" in court the defense can object on grounds there is no leagal definition of the word---so--what does the prosecutor mean by "human". The defense can ask for a definition which the prosecution doesn't have. The procecution has to enter the term as an assumption---but an assumption isn't evidence or permissable. Ok, nuff og that. Do you see where we're coming from. The total of the legal system is nonsense. Artificial person is nonsense, but they have to have nonsense because they're trying to inpose thier system on a population that they cannot legally explain. etc etc etc. Hey, I'm with you, the system is all bullshit so they win. They can make anything legal or illegal depending upon how they need to trap the masses to their will. Very simple. Legal, does not necessarily have to operate on reality. That's why politition are such liars---they have to get through their own bullshit somehow.   

 

that definition of human could also be a dog or cat. It alll seems hypocritical to me. There's to many differences of opinion or the understanding, or how people see things or want to make them to be. But I do admit that you have found a source of the interpretaion of Human. There's to much disagreement in the world.I was just looking up "Animism". They would disagree with you, I think.

Here's two + yours.

What constitutes being a person?
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places. ... The plural "persons" is often used in philosophical and legal writing.

What is the definition of a human being?
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being. Origin of human being Expand.


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

It all depends upon "who" makes the rules.

Wow, look at this. I couldn't read the whole thing. It made me go out and dive into a snowbank. There was no snow.

 

http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

 

 

Which country, which group, which indivicual. As best I know the people at large don't make the rules, polititions do. Out of all the determinations made by law, which country, group, is correct. If there all all these opinons and applicable laws which one shall I go by. laws are oft time made from opinions. Op[inions may not be correct. The best one can do is analyz all terms and see which one actually applies. Human has 3 applications, physical, intellectual, and mental. We choose the mental and usr it as a mental state or presents. That's the one that gets us along propoerly with each other. We throw out the other 2 and don't consider them human attributes. If a government wamt to make anything other it's not working to make peace with each other. It the one mental work fo us. Which ever the wporld has or wamts it to be isn't working to make peace in the world. Thaats what our interest is.

I'm not pretending there's an authority, the US government is the major authority in the US. That's not pretend, that's fact. It government that decided what human is according to it's authority and made the determination. The gov [roduced legal discription, not the people. Anyway, as I understand it.

The people elect them, and their replacement. In what world do you live when that means the people have no choice? Millions of times throughout history a politician made a choice the people didn't like, so the people replaced the politician with a different politician who undid what the people never wanted done. It's so common now that it happens at least once a month. In extreme cases, the politician doesn't live to regret pissing the people off.

If a politician makes a decision and isn't fired or killed for it, then the people approve his decision. The people have the final say. The people make the rules.

None and all. These are subjective opinions, not objective facts we are discussing. Human law has no impact on the universe, only on humans.

You go by the law for the country you live in. Otherwise you go to jail. If you don't like local law, find a different locale.

FYI, that's one not three.

Ridiculous. False from premise to conclusion and back again.

Peace is in noones best interest. War is the natural state of the universe, not peace. Anyone who thinks peace is in their best interest should divorce themselves from society and live in a forest by themselves. Then maybe they'll learn how they need war to survive. It's easy to forget you're at war when everything is made easy for you. You don't have to hunt or gather, shelter is everywhere, and things that used to kill you now take a 5 minute trip to the doctor to fix.

The US government has no authority that the people don't grant it, and which the people cannot take away. The people are the authority, not the government.

No what I'm telling you are facts. Ignore them if you like, just as most of your population ignores reality for the fiction they prefer to believe. As long as you all choose to be a bunch of ignorant fools, you have noone but yourselves to blame for the state of your country.

Why wouldn't it make a difference? Everyone fools: bad time, extinction. Everyone not fools: good time, no extinction.

That doesn't mean we can't do better. Why not be better?

Wars are rarely deliberately concocted. Most of the time two retards who are full of themselves refuse to talk nicely, and instead keep calling each other names while waving sticks around.
You probably wouldn't do well in a position of such authority anyway.

Your vision is very narrow. Other humans might be spared your decisions, but not life. In order to live you must kill.

Natural doesn't mean uncriticisable. People choose to be fools. Nothing wrong with criticising such choices. In fact, if you don't criticise, then you're just as bad.

It's not really possible to say how much better we could do. As we went, we'd find some policies and/or practices would end up being prerequisites for other policies and/or practices that aren't even foreseeable as yet.

As for what could or would be better, that could take years to detail. A short list of examples:
A greater focus on society than the individual would be a good start. Improving education by taking uneducated morons opinions out of it all together (elected trustees and boards should be abolished). Creating a distribution system for resources and education on a global scale for anyone willing to work together instead of waving their dicks around. Removing hypocrites from public office (see the entire US government). Changing government so it cannot be used as a way to get rich. Getting rid of the patent system altogether. Disallowing the personification of non persons in law. Mandatory public schooling. Mandatory enlistment in defence forces (though not for deployment to foreign nations to fight, rather to assist education by giving life experience). Restructuring of militaries to replace corporations. Mandatory minimum and maximum incomes. Complete and total transparency. Criminalise public lying (as a public official). Criminalise censorship. Returning agriculture to sustainable systems. Feeding, sheltering, and educating anyone willing to accept it. Reforming the justice system in multiple ways, starting by decriminalising all victimless crimes. Also focus on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment.

There's a lot more that I could come up with, and it grows exponentially the more people sign on; as noone could come up with everything that could be better.

Not necessarily. Public opinion will alter political positions faster than anything. When I was a kid, the only place you weren't supposed to smoke was at locations where the heat of the cigarette could start a fire, or an explosion. Planes, malls, grocery stores, and everywhere else was perfectly acceptable. Today you can barely smoke in your own home. Took a single generation to do a complete 180 on policy.

Similar scenario with gay people. When I was a kid, being gay was so wrong you weren't even taught about it existing. Many people who were caught were sent to conversion camps to attempt to force them to be straight. Now it's rare to find people who are against gay people, and gay people are allowed to marry in many places.

It is possible that wiping out the elites will be necessary. It has happened multiple times throughout history, and it could easily happen again. But it isn't necessarily necessary.

I don't think it's likely that we will actually get much better. I think it's likely we're on a path to extinction. But it isn't impossible that someday people will stop being idiots.

The timing is less important than the people. It is unlikely that the best and brightest would survive such a war, making it highly unlikely that a shift in the favour of our discussion would occur.

Unfortunately, the most likely aftermath of a big war which does see some survivors is one in which religion surges and knowledge is extinguished.

If that happens, it'll be our death sentence. It won't matter what happens on the societal side except to those few who have to live with it until the inevitable end. By the time humanity restores the level of technology we enjoy today, too many resources will have been used to allow our descendants to replicate what we have now, let alone advance sufficiently to ensure the survival of any earth origined species.

Unless such a war is started and ended quickly by people with such an agenda, I don't see it happening. It's much more likely stupid people would pursue such a goal than intelligent people.

It would be the perfect time, but only if the conditions were perfect. Only if there are a majority of socialists who survive. That's not going to happen.

Our best chance is in getting things changed before such a war. The necessary infrastructure and communications exist now. It is only pride and ignorance standing in the way.

Bernie Sanders may have been able to kick things off. He's the only one I've yet to see who might've though. Clinton is no better than Trump in that regard. Smarter sure, but not more intelligent.

There are metals that do not renew. We've already used too much to be able to start over. We're nearly out of them already. Asteroid mining is necessary for us to grow much further.

People can survive without technology, but sooner or later a disaster will strike and everyone will die. The entire species and everything we ever did: erased.

Sorry, I never knew the planet had feelings. I'm sorry earth.

Lets take alook at Vastets "natural process" Idea. Consider that from the start of people "being" it is nothing more then a grand experiment (non-intellectual of course) by nature to create a lesson process and time for us to eventualy learn a few things.  Maybe it's nature's way of saying, being intellegent has it's consequences. So. from this we learn, and if so then Vastet might be wrong that we'll get rid of ourselves. But, it would have to be that last remnant that survive that would see what;s to learn. If that last remining don't learn then they're gone with all the rest. Then us Old Seers will have been right---intelligence is the enemy. And, I suppose we'd be gone to--unless we go into the "Noah Mode" to secape (also escape) the mental flood.

 

oh, suddenly EXC weeps for the worker? that's rich...

What is your definition of Socialism? Is it with a gun to my head or not? It seems you want people like me to vote for elites to decide how the fruits of my labor should be spent on science and charity. I just can't do it voluntarily so I should vote to have the tax man force me with a show of deadly force. I should want science and charity but I should do what others want, and I should vote to be forced to support others projects, not my own.

So we only try to cure popular disease like cancer since a majority want that disease dealt with. If I am affect by a rare disease tough shit, my money goes to Washington to let the beauracrats skim off and pass out for political favors.

 

Is your definiton of capititalism with a gun to my head to force me to work for someone else?

you don't have to buy, hoss. the worker takes, when he is empowered, and by everything i've seen from you over the years, you're among the parasites. you won't be in the equation at all. you'll be lucky if you're provided with a job mopping up shit in a dairy coop.

No. I want my fair share of the earth's natural resouces. You didn't work to create these. The fairest system would be to divide up equally and people live in an area and under the rules they want. Then as people starve under crony socialism or they get tired of supporting freeloaders, they should be free to leave and more land becomes availale to people that don't believe workers should turn over all the fruits over to elitist party leaders that enrich themselves and their cronies. People can vote with their feet, what is wrong with that?

 

 

Did you forget I'm a slave to the present welfare state. Over half of what I make they take already. Leaving me little time or money for my own passions and dreams. And you want an even bigger welfare state.

 

It is so irration what you expect people to swallow. The common man is to inept to decide where is charity and science donations should go. So we must have politicians and beauracrats decide for them. Of course they skim off a lot and pass out to cronies. If the common man is to inept to decide how his money should be spent, why is he qualified to vote. Or do you want a dictatorship? Dictatorship work of course by using all the money collected to prop up the strong man and his violent supporters. How does that advance useful science?

Hopefully the days of the working man turning over his power and wealth to government are numbered.

Earth doesn't belong to you or anyone else. Denied as noone is entitled to a share.

Neither did you. Which is another reason you're denied.

You can see the future? Because otherwise the earth cannot be divided up equally.
Also, feel free to live by your own rules. I'll laugh my ass off when some random group kicks your ass and enslaves you because you have no defence against it.

Did you forget we aren't talking about current conditions, but conditions under socialism? No you're just stupid.

No I want to end the welfare state.

No what's irritating is your absolute stupidity and repetitive bullshit lies and strawmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc

Aren't we all atheists to start with, then we start to fling shit on our self saying its perfume? Kids usually just follow what their parents do, mimic actually. Even when I was going to church in my teens it wasn't until my parents said I could drive myself that I said "fuck this" and ended up at my friend's house playing games for an hour.

It will end up being like the Morlocks and Eloi. One species eating the other.

So why ever give government so much power and free money in form of taxation? If you want to empower the working man, you can start by letting him keep 100% of what he earns. And forcing government to earn 100% of the money it collects.

The real political divide is elites vs the working man. Socialism/Communisms/Leftism are scams because they always end up being led by a strong man who tells the workers I'm with you so give me everthing. He then proceeds to distrute the wealth to himself and cronies that keep him in power.

You're delusional.

False false false.

1 There's absolutely no need or reason for mandatory birth control. None whatsoever.

2 There would be significant limits on what students could study, which you'd know if you'd ever bothered to read my posts over the last decade. Instead you make shit up because you know I'm right and you can't find a rational argument against me.

3 Same as 2. I won't force people to work when there is no work, but I JUST FUCKING TOLD YOUR DUMB ASS THAT THE POPULATION MUST BE WILLING TO WORK TO TAKE PART IN SOCIETY.

The piece of shit I flushed down the toilet last night is smarter than you, retard.

Lies. Every single time you whine about taxes you also whine about defence spending, because there wouldn't be defence spending without taxes. You fucking moron.

Nope. My socialist state would have better defence than every nation on Earth today combined.

Then you should agree that the 'March for science is a scam'.

We let students study whatever they desired. To follow their heart and dreams. So guess what? Many became research scientists instead of general practitioner doctors. So there are too many scientist chasing after too few research dollars.

So now, after paying all this money for their education, these leftist scientists are demanding I pay even more to support their research to follow their dreams. Why can't they be forced into a career that is best for society, where they take care of themselves instead of demanding I pay more taxes for them to follow their heart's desire? And I got to pay massive taxes because of the doctor shortage as well.

If the major cause of war(population pressures) is removed, no one need spend massive amounts on defense. If you have a large volunteer force of soldiers and police, you don't need to pay someone who is more likely to turn the gun on the citizens that paid him than defend the citizens. You don't need taxation, governments can collect all they need from user fees.

Taxation is a scam.