>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Barseps:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

But what if I'm carrying a coconut?


Depends, African or European coconut?

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.


But what if I'm carrying a coconut?

>> ^PHJF:

Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.


Speed is scalar. Velocity has vector.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.


The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

>> ^PHJF:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.


Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.


Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

>> ^PHJF:

Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.


But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

Trick question.>> ^marinara:

Which is worse: A president who once voted for the "Federal Partial birth abortion ban" (2003) or a president who just signed the NDAA into law?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.


I usually agree with you...but you're wrong here.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

>> ^blankfist:

Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.


Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.

This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.

It doesn't work that way.

Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.

It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

>> ^NetRunner:

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics


Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.

Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

Trick question! I call shenanigans!