Lies, Cons,and the American Way

[Age]

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy.

In the past I've seen you insist that everyone who views abortion as anything other than murder knows they are wrong. You seem to have adjusted your position now?

But 'murder' is PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY, in that country known as "america".

'Murder' is even court ORDERED in 'that place'. That is how PERFECTLY FINE, and NORMAL, 'murder' is 'in that place'.

[Age]

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy.

In the past I've seen you insist that everyone who views abortion as anything other than murder knows they are wrong. You seem to have adjusted your position now?

No. They know. But some won't say, and will use it as an excuse to deny the first premise of any defense-of-life for children.

But children are born 'innately' so-called and with the misnomer "sinners'", and so do wrong. So, ending the life of "sinners'" is good and right, correct?

Well that is what the 'court system' in that country in this thread title SAYS and STATES. After all it is 'court ordered' that those who 'do wrong' are sentenced TO and put TO 'death'.

There's no future in an argument with somebody who's being that dishonest.

But 'you' have shown and still continually show that 'you', "immanuel can", are one of the MOST Dishonest ones here.

And there's no future in an argument with anybody who's COMMITTED an abortion, either-- because they have absolutely no incentive ever to admit to themselves, under any circumstances, that what they have actually done is murdered their own child.

This view here "immanuel can" would be about one of the smallest and narrowest views that 'you' have expressed and shown here. That is, if just how Truly CLOSED 'it' REALLY IS was NOT as OBVIOUS as 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

They'll never grant you that, no matter what; but it's not because they haven't done it, but because they cannot stand to admit the truth to themselves, so you'll never ever get them to agree.

LOL
LOL
LOL

One just HAS TO DEFINE the word 'murder', SHOW how 'that definition' relates to what is being discussed here, then absolutely NO one could REFUTE that what is being discussed is NOT 'murder'.

It would take too much honesty, and it would be too painful for them ever to recognize.

But we digress...

'you' may be digressing but 'you' are also POINTING OUT and DESCRIBING EXACTLY what 'you' DO "immanuel can".

'you' are a PRIME CANDIDATE of one who it is OBVIOUSLY to painful for 'you' to even RECOGNIZE just how Dishonest 'you' REALLY HAVE BEEN here.

[Age]

That all contradicts this though...

No, it doesn't. But I know you're just trolling, so there's no point in pointing out the obvious.

What is, supposedly, 'obvious' to you is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily 'obvious' to 'us' AT ALL. So, what is the REAL reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE there is NO point AT ALL in 'pointing out the obvious'.

I am ASKING 'you', 'Will 'you' POINT OUT what 'you' CLAIM here is 'the obvious' "Immanuel can"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Will Bouwman]

What sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

I don't understand how you can claim that we are a supreme being's most cherished creation, a sort of mini me made in his own image, and at the same time have such contempt for the supreme being's most cherished creation that you believe it is sinful the instant two cells fuse.

[Age]

What sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

I don't understand how you can claim that we are a supreme being's most cherished creation, a sort of mini me made in his own image, and at the same time have such contempt for the supreme being's most cherished creation that you believe it is sinful the instant two cells fuse.

The reason 'you' do NOT UNDERSTAND how "Immanuel can" can CLAIM the 'things' that 'it' does is BECAUSE "Immanuel can" can NOT back up and support 'its' OWN CLAIMS.

In fact "Immanuel can" has ALREADY PROVEN that 'it' REALLY does NOT have ANY REAL CLUE NOR IDEA in regards to A LOT OF what 'it' SAYS and CLAIMS here.

[Walker]

...

Age, your brilliance is dimming. The wow has shrunk from upper case to lower case. I'd rather see the shine than the polishing machinery. Show me the shine.

[Age]

...

Age, your brilliance is dimming. The wow has shrunk from upper case to lower case. I'd rather see the shine than the polishing machinery. Show me the shine.

SHOW 'me' what 'you' are talking ABOUT and referring TO, EXACTLY.

[Walker]

...

Age, your brilliance is dimming. The wow has shrunk from upper case to lower case. I'd rather see the shine than the polishing machinery. Show me the shine.

SHOW 'me' what 'you' are talking ABOUT and referring TO, EXACTLY.

I'm talking about accepting you as you are.

[Age]

Age, your brilliance is dimming. The wow has shrunk from upper case to lower case. I'd rather see the shine than the polishing machinery. Show me the shine.

SHOW 'me' what 'you' are talking ABOUT and referring TO, EXACTLY.

I'm talking about accepting you as you are.

And how am 'i', EXACTLY?

[Walker]

You are that which led to the latest question.

[Alexiev]

Have you ever had one? The rage, entitlement and self-will of a two-year-old is truly something to behold.

I have. My son was, like God's, practically perfect at every age. At least, I've always thought so.

So are my sons and daughters, still. They have a great, innate compassion. The stories I could tell of what I've seen.

They say that characteristics skip generations. Some do.

My parents were practcally perfect, too. My generation (and I) got skipped.

[Walker]

I have. My son was, like God's, practically perfect at every age. At least, I've always thought so.

So are my sons and daughters, still. They have a great, innate compassion. The stories I could tell of what I've seen.

They say that characteristics skip generations. Some do.

My parents were practcally perfect, too. My generation (and I) got skipped.

I was thinking the very same thing about myself.

[Alexiev]

Our mythology suggests that the "American Way" is dilligence and hard work, which will be rewarded financially (and is morally admirable).

'Who's' mythology suggests 'this'?

And, WHY do 'you' have such a mythology "alexiev"?

I suggest that if absolutely ANY one has a 'mythology', then 'that one' STILL does NOT YET RECOGNIZE and KNOW what the word 'mythology' means, nor refers to, exactly?

This mythology is promoted by the Capitalists who fruitlessly wish that it were true.

In fact, if there is an "American Way" or an "American Dream" it resides in the quick score. It sent our ancestors scrambling to California and the Klondike in Gold Rushes that impoverished the vast majority of the rushers. It is reflected in our election of the con-man Donald Trump as President. Lottery tickets sell well.

Mark Twain once said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." (Or perhaps that quote is a lie, too)

Two current news stories remind me of this.

First, Sam Bankman-Fried is on trial for defrauding customers out of billions of dollars in his crypto-currency company and his hedge fund. Yello Kid Weil, perhaps the greatest American con-man, once said that you can't con an honest man. You have to find those looking for an "angle". Crypoto-currency seems the perfect opportunity. It's a con, and those investing are looking for a quick score, like the Gold Rushers of yore. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have an educated opinion about Bankman Fired's guilt of innocense. What do others think? Is crypto-currency a con? Is Bankman-Fried (the son of two Stanford Law Professors who specialize in legal ethics and are also being sued for accepting gifts from their billionaire son) guilty?

Second, two superstars in social science are being accused of fraud. Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino are leaders in the post-modern movement that has questioned the foundation of classic Economic Theory: the notion that economic man is a "rational actor". Of course they are right ---but it also appears that they have both fudged their data to support their conclusions. Ariely was an economics professor at MIT, Gino a professor at Harvard. They rose to the top of their professions (with $50,000 lecture honororiums) by publishing paper after paper explaining how and when people lie and deceive. It appears that they were themselves lying and deceiving (I just read a current New Yorker article about them, but I can't find it on line to provide a link). Perhaps the dishonest are prone to studying dishonesty.

Is lying immoral?

Yes

If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding?

Why not just tell the Truth, instead, to protect a friend, or to a group of human beings looking for another group of human beings?

If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

But lying is not acceptable when the Truth can be used. The Truth can ALWAYS be used, if 'It' had been, then there would NOT 'now' be human beings wanting to hurt, harm, nor damage "other" human beings.

I'm simply asserting that some (many) people think the "American Way" involves hard work and bootstrap pulling. This assertion would make the rest of my post reasonable whatever % constitutes "some".

My claim is that lying is "acceptable" under a wide variety of circumstances. That kid in "To Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street" (a book now cancelled) should have entertained his father with one of his fanciful stories, instead of "a plain horse and wagon".

The truths (beauty) embodied in the fanciful and mythological etchings on Keats' Grecian Urn (or in the Bible, to be more controversial) are as valuable as scientific and materialistc "truths".

[Age]

Our mythology suggests that the "American Way" is dilligence and hard work, which will be rewarded financially (and is morally admirable).

'Who's' mythology suggests 'this'?

And, WHY do 'you' have such a mythology "alexiev"?

I suggest that if absolutely ANY one has a 'mythology', then 'that one' STILL does NOT YET RECOGNIZE and KNOW what the word 'mythology' means, nor refers to, exactly?

This mythology is promoted by the Capitalists who fruitlessly wish that it were true.

In fact, if there is an "American Way" or an "American Dream" it resides in the quick score. It sent our ancestors scrambling to California and the Klondike in Gold Rushes that impoverished the vast majority of the rushers. It is reflected in our election of the con-man Donald Trump as President. Lottery tickets sell well.

Mark Twain once said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." (Or perhaps that quote is a lie, too)

Two current news stories remind me of this.

First, Sam Bankman-Fried is on trial for defrauding customers out of billions of dollars in his crypto-currency company and his hedge fund. Yello Kid Weil, perhaps the greatest American con-man, once said that you can't con an honest man. You have to find those looking for an "angle". Crypoto-currency seems the perfect opportunity. It's a con, and those investing are looking for a quick score, like the Gold Rushers of yore. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have an educated opinion about Bankman Fired's guilt of innocense. What do others think? Is crypto-currency a con? Is Bankman-Fried (the son of two Stanford Law Professors who specialize in legal ethics and are also being sued for accepting gifts from their billionaire son) guilty?

Second, two superstars in social science are being accused of fraud. Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino are leaders in the post-modern movement that has questioned the foundation of classic Economic Theory: the notion that economic man is a "rational actor". Of course they are right ---but it also appears that they have both fudged their data to support their conclusions. Ariely was an economics professor at MIT, Gino a professor at Harvard. They rose to the top of their professions (with $50,000 lecture honororiums) by publishing paper after paper explaining how and when people lie and deceive. It appears that they were themselves lying and deceiving (I just read a current New Yorker article about them, but I can't find it on line to provide a link). Perhaps the dishonest are prone to studying dishonesty.

Is lying immoral?

Yes

If so, would it be immoral to lie to protect a friend, or lie to the Gestapo about where the Jews are hiding?

Why not just tell the Truth, instead, to protect a friend, or to a group of human beings looking for another group of human beings?

If these lies are acceptable, doesn't that show that it is not lying ipso facto that is immoral, but some result that comes from lying? Any opinions?

But lying is not acceptable when the Truth can be used. The Truth can ALWAYS be used, if 'It' had been, then there would NOT 'now' be human beings wanting to hurt, harm, nor damage "other" human beings.

I'm simply asserting that some (many) people think the "American Way" involves hard work and bootstrap pulling.

OF COURSE 'they' DO.

Most adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, THINK that 'life', itself, involves 'hard work'.

I am just POINTING OUT that what most of 'you', adult human beings, THINK or BELIEVE here is just Wrong, ABSURD, and PURE NONSENSE.

This assertion would make the rest of my post reasonable whatever % constitutes "some".

'you' are absolutely FREE to think and/or BELIEVE whatever 'you' like.

My claim is that lying is "acceptable" under a wide variety of circumstances.

OF COURSE 'you' WOULD, and DO. Especially considering the Fact that were brought up being TAUGHT that 'lying' IS ACCEPTABLE, under certain circumstances.

I am just POINTING OUT that IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one WITH this EXACT SAME VIEW, BELIEF, or CLAIM, as 'yours', would like to have A DISCUSSION about 'your CLAIM', then by all means let us. I KNOW the ACTUAL Truth can be and WILL BE SHOWN and REVEALED.

That kid in "To Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street" (a book now cancelled) should have entertained his father with one of his fanciful stories, instead of "a plain horse and wagon".

The truths (beauty) embodied in the fanciful and mythological etchings on Keats' Grecian Urn (or in the Bible, to be more controversial) are as valuable as scientific and materialistc "truths".

[Walker]

Most adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, THINK that 'life', itself, involves 'hard work'.

For the little capitalist, big risk amounts to hard work because big risk brings big reward.

For the big capitalist there is no risk and the big reward is in a treasure chest with locks to protect what remains after the government confiscates its protection money; protection money to be used for discretionary expenditures, i.e., voting money for investors in the form of socialist pet projects that often fail in their ostensible intent, but reward those with the inside scoop such as the lawmakers who make necessary adjustments in regulations, waivers, and such rules of the white collars, all for the ostensible purpose of accomodating the progress of society, as their media minions will dutifully parrot. No age, don't try and tell me you don't have a clue, because I just gave you plenty.

in the days when this is being written

So let it be written, so let it be done!