To Impenitent

[Wizard22]

How come you, supposedly, do not really care if EVERY 'body' deems you insane but you seem to somewhat care when just one says you SEEM to be just 'a BIT of a dimwit'?

I don't care if a dimwit calls me a dimwit. But I can't let such insults stand either.

[Wizard22]

I recall the days of the hand counted, verified paper ballot- accurate and fair elections - computed the day of voting...

machines control the "count" and the ballots...

I do not trust the programmers

-Imp

I don't either.

Do you believe US elections in the past are generally 'fair', or have they always been corrupt? If yes, then how corrupt? Is 2020 an exception to the previous eras of corruptness?

[Age]

What IS ANY 'past', 'present', or 'future' in relation to, EXACTLY, anyway?

Time is subjective, relative to the person's cognition.

What people call "time" is their brain processing reality in "real-time".

I was ASKING a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION here.

[Age]

How come you, supposedly, do not really care if EVERY 'body' deems you insane but you seem to somewhat care when just one says you SEEM to be just 'a BIT of a dimwit'?

I don't care if a dimwit calls me a dimwit. But I can't let such insults stand either.

WHY NOT?

Did ANY one here take 'it' SERIOUSLY?

[Wizard22]

WHY NOT?

Did ANY one here take 'it' SERIOUSLY?

Because Philosophy requires interlocution, debate and argument between (presumably equal) peers. There needs to be levels of respect and decorum, for Philosophy to take place. The quality of such, depends on the participants directly. A leader in such an environment, needs to lead by example. I consider those who start threads, 'leaders' of their own threads, demonstrating personal quality and calibre of thoughts/ideas.

[Age]

WHY NOT?

Did ANY one here take 'it' SERIOUSLY?

Because Philosophy requires interlocution, debate and argument between (presumably equal) peers.

To me 'philosophy' NEVER requires 'debate' AT ALL, NOR EVER. In fact, to me, 'debate' is the VERY OPPOSITE of 'philosophy'.

Also, NO one is 'better' NOR 'worse' than ANY one "else". So, ALL of 'you', human beings, are EQUAL, in this regard.

There needs to be levels of respect and decorum, for Philosophy to take place.

But, IF one does NOT CARE, then they, REALLY, do NOT CARE.

To me, ABSOLUTELY NO one could so-call 'insult' me. But, ANY one can 'TRY TO' for AS LONG they want or for HOW MUCH they want, AS WELL.

The quality of such, depends on the participants directly. A leader in such an environment, needs to lead by example. I consider those who start threads, 'leaders' of their own threads, demonstrating personal quality and calibre of thoughts/ideas.

[Wizard22]

That's your prerogative.

To me, stagnation is abhorrent. Conflict, debate, argument, philosophizing, is required to improve, to evolve, to grow, to learn.

Equality is Stagnation.

[Impenitent]

I recall the days of the hand counted, verified paper ballot- accurate and fair elections - computed the day of voting...

machines control the "count" and the ballots...

I do not trust the programmers

-Imp

I don't either.

Do you believe US elections in the past are generally 'fair', or have they always been corrupt? If yes, then how corrupt? Is 2020 an exception to the previous eras of corruptness?

prior to 2020, yes they were generally fair...

there has always been precincts that were corrupted but once Trump got elected and started dismantling the bureaucracy, the bureaucrats made certain that his undoing of the bureaucracy would end...

the bureaucrats are still fighting for their existence but as we will soon see, the government will run out of other people's money and we'll have Weimar in America...

biden's response to China's invasion of Taiwan will be telling...

-Imp

[Wizard22]

The Democrat party and Liberals are doing everything in their power to suppress inflation before the 2024 election.

This is shaping up to be a repeat of 2008, but ten or a hundred times worse. Do you have any predictions about that?

[FlashDangerpants]

The Democrat party and Liberals are doing everything in their power to suppress inflation before the 2024 election.

This is shaping up to be a repeat of 2008, but ten or a hundred times worse. Do you have any predictions about that?

Bad news, now you've written that thing about Jews, Impenitent will need to put a bit of space between you and he.

[commonsense]

'The present' and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE.

EXACTLY no AND yes.

The future is relative to the present. The present just is.

[Age]

'The present' and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE.

EXACTLY no AND yes.

The future is relative to the present. The present just is.

But 'the present', JUST IS, in regards to WHO, EXACTLY?

'The past', 'the present', and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE to a 'subjective observer' when compared to the 'objective Observer', was WHAT I was REFERREING to, EXACTLY?

[commonsense]

'The present' and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE.

EXACTLY no AND yes.

The future is relative to the present. The present just is.

But 'the present', JUST IS, in regards to WHO, EXACTLY?

'The past', 'the present', and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE to a 'subjective observer' when compared to the 'objective Observer', was WHAT I was REFERREING to, EXACTLY?

“The present just is” means the same as “the present exists.”

BTW, what is an objective observer?

[Age]

EXACTLY no AND yes.

The future is relative to the present. The present just is.

But 'the present', JUST IS, in regards to WHO, EXACTLY?

'The past', 'the present', and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE to a 'subjective observer' when compared to the 'objective Observer', was WHAT I was REFERREING to, EXACTLY?

“The present just is” means the same as “the present exists.”

OF COURSE. This is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.

If you read the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED, 'it' is in relation to WHO, and NOT about what 'the present just is' MEANS.

BTW, what is an objective observer?

'EVERY one' as One.

Or, in another, and simpler, word: Everyone.

[commonsense]

But 'the present', JUST IS, in regards to WHO, EXACTLY?

'The past', 'the present', and 'the future' are VERY RELATIVE to a 'subjective observer' when compared to the 'objective Observer', was WHAT I was REFERREING to, EXACTLY?

“The present just is” means the same as “the present exists.”

OF COURSE. This is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.

If you read the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED, 'it' is in relation to WHO, and NOT about what 'the present just is' MEANS.

BTW, what is an objective observer?

'EVERY one' as One.

Or, in another, and simpler, word: Everyone.

So, everyone is an objective observer?

The present just is, and it’s not relative to anything other than itself. Being relative to only itself is the same as saying it just is. The present just is is the same as the present is only relative to itself. The present just is is the same as the present only is, and the present only is is the same as the present isn’t anything else. The present cannot be relative to anything because then it would not only exist but exist and be relative to something else.