yoink

Just this morning during my devotions, I began to see that in the final trimester of fetal development the person is forming a spiritual relationship with God the father. At birth the individual is amazed at its existence and begins to seek understanding of its new environment. Somewhere in the first two years the individual develops ego and "I" becomes selfishly centralized. Some of us remember our spiritual connection and try to regain it. Wait wait wait - you stated very clearly just a few weeks ago that everyone is born sinful and that they have to find God in order to undo that. Now you're reversing that and saying that everyone is born OK and gets sinful in the first couple of years because of this ego thing you bang on about. and you're saying both of these things like it's fact 'because you see it' after thinking about it for a little while. And you wonder why I have issues with your faith? It's inconsistent and entirely made up. You can change your stance as the wind blows to give yourself whatever comfy feeling you like. It's the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. You take no responsibility for your life, behaviour or actions because you've convinced yourself that 'I believe in Jesus so it'll be fine'. I hope there IS a God and that they judge people based on how they've lived their lives. I think a lot of people who expect otherwise would be in for a very rude awakening.

I'm going to heaven. No one else is. God told me.

OK, that seems reasonable. How long do you think that would take? A couple of days at least, or more like a week if you are going to interview the kid, family, friends, teachers, get a warrant to access medical records, get a warrant to search their home. So, how many agents would it take to deal with the volume of tips? You'd have to have some in every big city and more to cover rural areas. So what would that be, another 1,000 FBI agents? 10,000? Who's going to pay for them? Shall we cut the budget for the military to pay for it? Medical research? Don And of course in the meantime we're paying teachers so little that they're walking out in protest. Amazing how quickly Americans get behind a program if it means we don't have to address gun violence. Or it means more guns...

It depends how much she likes being first lady. Eminently possible she sticks it out for his term and divorces after, then writes books for 7 figure sums.

How would you define 'being in a relationship with God'? Does it involve blind worship and drone-like acceptance? Because if so, see above.

Put 'Baby' before any product then jack the price up 400%. Seriously.

If there is such a thing this is my hope, and how I try to live. If the condition for entry is 'believe or else' then fuck that guy. I don't want to go anyway.

Yup, it's crazy. Our daycare is about $26,000 a year for a single child. That's before every single other cost. Baby formula is more expensive than crack, I'm sure.

Would you vote for him against just about anyone else?

As a small business owner I completely understand where you're coming from. As a relatively new dad I'll say that until you've been through it you can't believe how expensive and un-scheduleable (is that a word?) kids are. For reference, I'm paying more for daycare than I am for my mortgage on a detached home in San Diego. I'd ask him to look into options for day care and bring the costs to you. It doesn't have to be a formal day-care center. There are at-home day cares where it's just a girl looking after a couple of kids. Sure, it's not as good as a structured learning environment, but it's better than being out of work. When you have the talk with him, look through the numbers and offer him a deal. Split the cost with him so that he gets a temporary pay rise that will pay for half of it with the understanding that if he does great work and his attendance improves there will be more pay coming at the end of the year to off set the cost even further. If he still can't organize his life then he needs to make some tough decisions. If you have the 'payrise' as a separate line item as 'childcare benefit' this is even a tax write-off for you. http://work.chron.com/can-business-write-off-childcare-employees-16377.html

I was lucky enough to attend a couple of lectures by him during the early 2000's. I found him absolutely incredible at teaching complex mathematical concepts to people like myself who struggled through some of his books. I had a very brief talk with him afterwards and found him incredibly polite and approachable. Even back then, when I told him that I had a degree in AI he was asking about if I'd considered the implications of that field for humanity. Gave me a lot to think about. The world is slightly poorer off today. It's predictable that Brief History of Time would jump to the top of Amazon's best sellers list, but if you're looking for a book by him I'd suggest The Universe in a Nutshell. For me that was a much better read. It had pictures. His explanation of spin on particles still hurts my brain... How can something have to go through 720 degrees of rotation on the same axis before it looks the same again??

You don't have to ask that hypothetically. Ron has made it pretty clear that he supports the Rs and Trump. And any criticism of them, or reports of 'unpatriotic' behavior is simply 'fake news.' OTOH, he has also made it clear that the "socialist/communist/liberal" democrats are his 'enemy.' I highly doubt you could convince him otherwise. Hence my question - what if the republicans were being unpatriotic? could they ever be, or is being Republican being patriotic? What if he had to choose? At what point do you choose your tribe over your team?

Loyalty to 'my team' or 'my tribe' is almost hard wired into humans I think, and at the moment Americans are focused on their political teams, rather than the international tribes. Now that I'm typing this I have a genuine hypothetical question for Ron - if the Repubicans were being unpatriotic or anti-american, would you vote democrat? What's more important - the team or the tribe? Look at how easily team sports like football create groups of opposing fans, then from that hardcore rivalries. Growing up when football hooliganism was mainstream it was almost a visceral part of nature - if you're not on my team then you're my enemy. It's as close as I can get to understanding Ron's perspective.

Last I heard was that the UK WASN'T going to raise it as an article 5 issue. And I'm not convinced by the 'attack on the nation' rhetoric. Careless and dangerous? Absolutely. Grounds for some sort of reprisals. Sure. But starting WWIII over? Fuck no.

I'd be OK with that. If that's makes me a self-righteous asshole in your world, then I can live with that too. All I ask is that you're honest with yourself. If you're happy saying 'I support the NRA' then you don't get to say 'except in these cases'.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of donating to them but saying you don't support everything they do. You're lying to yourself - You ARE supporting everything they do. If I'm self-righteous then you're self-delusional. In my world by donating to an organization you are approving of every action they take because there is no way you have any control over them. If you don't like the risk of that association you shouldn't donate, or if an organization starts doing shit you don't approve of then you should stop donating. There's no bumper sticker that says 'Proud NRA Member (except in the case of x, y and z - in that case I'm totally against them!).' Maybe there should be...

*Disclaimer - NOT a medical professional. I'd guess the only thing you can do at home is take anti-inflammatories - probably 600 - 800mg per dose of a standard Ibuprofen, or around 500mg of something stronger like Naproxen (although these will need prescription) depending on what the doc says. That and ice packs - lots of 'em. More serious treatments would be like for any inflammation - steroid injections or finally, surgery. You've just got to rest it and let it heal, I'm afraid.

There are plenty of folks who support the NRA and do not agree with every action they take. It is sad that you consider them/us all scum. If you support them by donating, using their services etc you support EVERTHING they do, whether you intend to or not. Unless I'm misunderstanding and the amount you pay by membership is determined by each specific action they take...? You don't get to give them everything they ask for then say 'but I don't support all of the stuff they say or do'. Yes. You do. By definition. Like I said, I'm not against the idea of defending the rights of citizens, but not the way they do it. If you disagree with actions they take then stop supporting them. What's sad is that you can deceive yourself into thinking that you can pick and choose how much you support the NRA. They are first and foremost a marketing company, not a civil rights one.

(and as a further note, doesn't having an age limit of any sort violate the constitutional rights of everyone?)

And now the NRA are suing Florida for trying to enact some form of control. (How dare they??!) Among the reasons they cite is 'violating the constitutional rights of women (specifically) because they are less likely to commit violent acts with firearms'. The NRA really are scum, and I'm sorry, if you support them you're scum by association. There are right ways and wrong ways to defend constitutional rights - the NRA steps over those lines so often that it's crazy.

If schools are equipped with metal detectors, but aren't using them, it suggests that metal detectors probably aren't a practical part of the solution. I'm not sure about that just yet. It's seems a bit early to make that sweeping a judgement call. FWIW I think that a society that seriously says 'we should put metal detectors in schools to stop kids bringing guns in' and think that that's a great answer is pretty sick.

You and your pesky facts and data.

There would absolutely have to be an appeals process. And people would have to supply reasoning for a 'no' vote, I think. The interviewees absolutely must NOT be selected by the person applying - it would negate the whole purpose as only definite yesses would be proposed.

This actually isn't my preferred solution, but is something I've suggested to Derek. I've been going round in circles trying to think how a database and background checks can be made to work for gun control, and I just don't think it's possible in a centralized way. It's too big and complicated to have a solution that won't be full of holes or to cumbersome to be managed effectively at a federal level. Background checks are (in part) ineffective at the moment because of how they're done, how databases don't link to each other and how impersonal it is - but what if it wasn't? What if, when you apply to buy a gun, the system sends an email to your local trained LEO. (Not training in just law enforcement, but in this specific process). They then (without your knowledge of who) go and directly interview several family members and neighbors and after impressing upon them the responsibility and possible consequences of gun ownership ask if they would be willing to act as a reference for your application. Doing this face to face with the 'are you really ready to take responsibility if the person you recommend goes and shoots up a school' type of conversation will (I think) result in a much more careful consideration than just a 'please provide a reference' on a form somewhere. There are 3 possible answers to this interview: Yes, No and I'd prefer not to say / don't really know them. At this point the process bifurcates. A no from a direct family member is cause for rejection of your application and a flag goes on your file. You may apply again after a suitable waiting period (say 2 years). If the people who know you best aren't willing to say that you're responsible enough to own a gun, then you're probably not. The friends and neighbors don't have such a direct impact because they don't know you as well, and there are possible social interactions to consider. But if one of them say no it's like a minor-fail in a driving test. Not cause for immediate rejection, but does trigger a deeper background check. 3 minor fails and your application is rejected. Each year, those people who have been a reference for you are contacted by mail and asked to renew their affirmation of responsibility. Now there are 4 options: yes, no, I have no opinion and I've lost contact. Based on those responses your eligibility for continued gun ownership gets updated for another year. No big central databases and a much more manageable invasion of privacy. It's also an ongoing, local, confidential appraisal of your suitability for gun ownership.

You're being told by directly a teacher, someone with experience in the field, that a certain thing is likely to happen and your reply is 'I don't think it is'? What experience are you basing that on?