I would rather be thought an elitist by middle school dropouts who think they know everything but in reality are 100% wrong >98% of the time and partially wrong the rest of the time than be one of them.
Elitist!?! Lol. Are we back in 2016!? What do you think that word means?
Elitist: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitist
a: giving special treatment and advantages to wealthy and powerful people
b: regarding other people as inferior because they lack power, wealth, or status
That hardly fits, I think the rich should pay MORE by percentage of income, not LESS. Technically "special treatment", but definitely not more advantages.

Q: Do you think Trump is elitist? Explain your answer. (Pretty sure you just decided elitism is good).

If you would read, and not just insanity that agrees with your preconceptions, if you weren't so smarmy and dismissive whenever you THINK you have some point to make or gotcha tidbit of data, acting like a third grader who just took the last desert at lunch taunting the next in line, your bad grammar wouldn't get you ridiculed so often and you would be far less aggressive about making your mistaken points, and would again receive less ridicule.

But instead you swing nonsense with vitriol and hate like a club, clearly trying to do damage, but your club is a fake made of foam rubber lies, making it impossible to not smack you down every time you try to knock someone out with it and stand dumbstruck that it bounced back into your face.
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough.-Jackass

This time you're again wrong about what you claim, you backed yourself into a corner by claiming this IS your area of expertise and by deriding others without personal hands on experience in the field, then you got the facts completely backwards....as usual...then hid from your mistakes....as usual.

Again, I'll ask for 3 examples of that 1/3 of what I say that's wrong. I post enough that you should be able to find 3 from yesterday alone. I don't really expect you'll answer, because I don't think you can.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

>>>>> Do these words have no meaning to you? <<<<<
I know what encourage means. I know what stirred up means. I know what helped instigate means. I know what aroused means; when those phrases refer to a crowd.


And that's what is here.





Don't expect any more from me on this topic. Frankly I'm at a point where i don't care if you understand or not because it's right in front of you, clear as crystal.

People do not use specific words for no-reason.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

it's a shame that when president said he has tested positive for covid, the response for many was "what's his angle?"

not surprising for either incident or for the orangettes' "don't be mean to him" (like hill folk have no sense of irony) but this was...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/schadenfreude-20201002.

can say haven't found much schandenfreude in his deadly hubris or in his precarious situation but did find some dark humor from this...

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/fears-grow-for-trumps-ability-to-overcome-covid-19-as-an-obese-elderly-low-income-american1/

...that is fair game.

rather he loses the presidency, and recovers enough to face his trials, true place in history, and witness the steep fall off of the fat-head chasers. take his rightful place among the legacies of paterno, cosby and epstein.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

You're correct about gnosticism, but incorrect about (a)theism.

And dictionary.com is also wrong.
Merriam Webster defines it as:
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

If you ask google to define: atheist, you get:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theism/atheism speak only to BELIEF.

This chart explains it well

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

That's not "my" definition. That is from Merriam-Webster. I even provided you with a link.

Newsflash: the meanings of words change.

The original meaning of "decimate" was "reduce by 10%", but these days it means "kill or destroy a large portion of".

"Marriage" used to mean "a man paying someone else to take his daughter off his hands", but these days it means a "formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship".

And "president" used to imply a degree of competence or leadership, these days it means "orange buffoon".

Also, who the fuck hates hot dogs? What the hell is wrong with you? Hating hot dogs is unamerican! Why do you hate America, Bob?

The dictionary disagrees with you
homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

But for the sake of argument, elaborate.

Why is being anti-gay different from homophobia? And why isn't this preacher homophobic?

He clearly has an aversion to homosexuality and is advocating discrimination against it. Unless you can provide a rational reason for this (hint: "because my imaginary friend said so" does not count as a rational argument), I'd say he falls squarely under the definition of homophobic.

I've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.

Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.

...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)

I never said you can't oppose institutional rape. That was a counter-example to your "history wasn't universally sexist" point. I thought that was pretty clear.

I'll concede that sexism wasn't universal, but nothing is, so that's a completely meaningless point. I was illustrating that history in general has been pretty fucking awful to women.

As for that definition, it's not mine. I actually looked it up before I used it to make sure I wasn't using it incorrectly.

"the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities"
- Merriam Webster
"The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
- Oxford
"Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women"
- Wikipedia
Do I need to go on?

And yes, the concept has been around for ages. Support for the concept is relatively recent and has brought great change.

I'm not sure which dictionary you're using, but I just looked it up in two (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) and both disagree with you while agreeing with Dawkins.
I agree that prejudice and discrimination are a problem. But conflating criticism with prejudice is a problem too.

@A10anis
ill answer that question.
neither.

your premise implies a moral "goodness" to one side while the other is "more" evil.
so you leave a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils.
yet both are evil.

how is it that when "they" perform violent acts of aggression it is "terrorism" but when "we" do the very same thing it is for the moral good.that somehow "our" violence is more righteous and justified.
see:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

this is a classic hegelian dialectic=problem-reaction-solution

the choice of "lesser of two evils" totally ignores the first part.
the problem.
and the simple fact is:WE are the problem.
WE created the problem.
THEY react to the problem.
and then WE offer the solution.
in the form of violence.

i am not,by my commentary,dismissing the very actual and horrific truths of violence perpetrated by terrorists.

my point is simply:if you are going to look at a situation honestly you have to look at the board with open eyes.

let me put it in metaphorical terms:
which would you rather be eaten by?
a great white shark?
or a hammerhead?
neither...because BOTH are sharks.

i do totally agree with you in regards to pakistan.
they have been playing both sides for quite some time now,and lets not forget..they have nuclear weapons.

Merriam Webster is a dictionary, so perhaps *books is an appropriate channel listing.