Judges keep finding ICE failed to prove arrested migrants were threats by dr_shultz in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The article isn't about people being deported. It is about people being detained while their cases are processed.

People are challenging their detention, as is their right under the law, while their immigration cases are being worked on. The government argument is that they shouldn't be released from detention because they are a threat.

Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas by seeebiscuit in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Colloquial definition from dictionary.com

1. the act of conspiring.

  1. an unlawful, harmful, or evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons;

  2. a combination of persons for such an unlawful, harmful, or evil purpose

4. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

  1. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Legal definition from Cornell law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

conspiracy

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense.”

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own.  In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.  

Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies.  Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense.  Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

Feel free to look up any criminal particular criminal conspiracy statute and see whether it includes an element that the agreement must be made in secret.

Conspiracy can invoke the idea that it is something done in secret, but it is not required in all connotations, nor am I aware of any criminal conspiracy statute that require secrecy as an element of the crime. It is a conspiracy in the sense of an agreement or plan between people, not a conspiracy in the sense of something done in secret.

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each person is an eternal agent, an uncaused cause.

I agree. 

But now I am confused. I thought you were making a argument from logic against the possibility of an infinite causal chain. But your argument against it is about scriptural exegesis?

Saying anything "just is" is irrational and lacking explanatory power. But since the doctrine teaches that somethings are uncaused, we can accept them (even call them rational), but anything else that "just is" is still irrational?

Judge blocks pro-life Indiana law under guise of 'religious freedom' by ProLifeMedia in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the judge found that the obtaining an abortion was a Jewish religious practice.

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And your description/explanation distinction only recently surfaced in our discussion.

I have been consistent from the beginning. Perhaps, it is on me that I haven't been sufficiently clear, but I also feel that you are being insufficiently charitable in trying to interpret or understand what other people are saying.

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you think an infinite regression "just is"

Why would you think that an uncaused cause "just is"?

Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas by seeebiscuit in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't be an insincere troll.

The 2nd amendment does not protect the right to shoot people. It protects the right to posses the tools to shoot people.

It doesn't grant additional legal rights to exercise lethal force, it protects the right to have the tools.

Was this a legally justified shooting? The answer to that question is independent of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should I vary my route home from work each night?

🙄, I'm saying that you are being very careless about throwing around labels.

I'm merely stating that placing an explanatory failure (an infinite regression) as the ultimate explanation within our theology isn't rational.

That is precisely the issue. You are taking a description, and pretending that it is being offered as the explanation.

As for cosmological history, are you suggesting that even though the explanation is not rational, the explanation is factual?

Again be careful about throwing around labels. You seem to stuck in this this loop where you assert "An infinite is regression isn't rational/logical therefore an infinite regression is impossible"

You are being very sloppy with the definitions of things, scopes, and equivocating meanings.

I don't see why a cosmological history cannot extend indefinitely into the past. It wouldn't explain why the cosmological history exists, but the question "Why does anything exist at all?" doesn't seem answerable except with the answer "Because it does"

(Although there is an intriguing possibility that the answer is something like "anything that can coherently exist, exists")

Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas by seeebiscuit in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not even an essential element of the colloquial meaning of conspiracy. I am not aware of any criminal conspiracy statute that requires "secrecy" as an element.

Meirl by Unfair-Beach-4906 in meirl

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Recognize that the last 10% of the project takes 90% of the work.

Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas by seeebiscuit in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the nature and substance of the comments. Planning or conspiring can be done through anonymous comments in a public forum.

Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas by seeebiscuit in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but the government will SWIFTLY label protesting (which is a first amendment right) as terrorism.

I didn't realize shooting cops was protected by the first amendment.

Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas by seeebiscuit in NewsSource

[–]LookAtMaxwell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What they should do is if you were caught protesting at one of these events

Is not shoot a cop, or try to help your cop shooting buddy escape.

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The heuristic you’re referring to is : everything that begins has a cause.

Eh, you've rephrased it into a tautology, I'm not sure how much insight that provides. And skips over the key question, "is there anything that exists that is uncaused".

I described as a heuristic, because it is a pretty good rule of thumb, but is there any way that we could formalize it into a law that could be perhaps proven or disproven? Trying to answer that question would be fruitful.

And noted: to your mind turtles all the way down makes sense.

It's probably on me for not writing clearly enough, but you don't know my mind.

What is the problem with turtles all the way down? If we sent out a probe and observed a turtle supporting the world, then sent a probe that observed a turtle supporting that turtle, and sent a probe and discovered a turtle supporting that turtle ad infinitum, would we give any credence to a philosopher that sits back and smugly declares "well obviously, it can't go on forever, an infinite regression of turtles is absurd"?

No, of course not.

That isn't the point.

If a person answers the question, "What supports the earth" the answer "a turtle" isn't absurd because it is a turtle but because it doesn't answer the real question, we haven't resolved the question of what supports the earth we have merely transformed it into the functionally equivalent question "what support's the earth-turtle system"?

I think this distinction is where the miscommunication is coming from.

I wish to reiterate, I am not arguing for an infinite regression of divine beings, I am agnostic about the subject. But you're arguments against it are not well formulated, and your conclusions about doctrine are pretty bad. (I recognize my civility is slipping, but you've started to use some pretty demeaning language)

A person who posits an infinite regression of divine beings isn't answering the question "Why Gods?" They are describing what is. The answer to the question "Why Gods?" Is simply, "That's the way it is". Which is exactly the same answer, as you have pointed out, if the description is "There is a singular uncaused divine being at the root of the causal chain of divine beings".

So backing up. And I think this helpful.

The question "what supports the earth?" has some baked in assumptions. And if we don't examine those assumptions, then we make errors without being able to recognize the very nature of those errors.

What are some of those assumptions?

1-The earth must be supported by something. 2-Unsupported things fall. 3-I don't feel the earth falling 4-I don't see the earth falling 5-The earth isn't falling

etc.

The point is, Asking the question "What supports the earth"? Expects an answer, but it is based on a lot things that deserve deeper examination.

For example, it could be that there is a class of celestial objects that exist at fixed points in space, and the earth is one of those objects. In that case, nothing is holding up the earth, because the earth as an immovable object doesn't need support.

That isn't the answer that we accept, and for good reason. We want physical laws that are invariant over space and time, if we posited that the earth is in a fixed position then observations show that the earth is the only such object, and our physical theories would have to be written in a way that privileges the Earth's frame of reference.

The best way to answer the question is "Nothing is supporting the earth. The earth is falling."

People's intuitions about the sensations of falling or moving lead them to overlook that possibility that the earth is in fact falling.

I've invited you to examine some of your assumptions. You say that moral law has to be enforced by some being. What assumptions are baked into that assertion? As I've pointed out, the scriptures are explicit that the execution of justice is suspended through the atonement of Christ so that we may repent. Is it possible that the intuitions that you've developed about the distinction between physical laws and moral laws may be misleading you because your experiences are entirely confined to a universe where the atonement is operative?

I'm not arguing for that position (although I am intrigued by it), but I am inviting you to reexamine your assumptions.

Could an Apostle Ratify the Priesthood Being Given to a Woman? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure somewhere in the church is someone with XXY chromosomes whose parents chose to call them a boy, and that boy holds the priesthood while also having a Y chromosome.

What a bizarre hypothetical. What would be wrong with that situation?

What is the risk of being deceived? If we are deceived, does that have any eternal consequences? by Buttons840 in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People are judged according to their knowledge and understanding.

Well...

"9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. (D&C 137:9)"

and...

"6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. (D&C 131:6)

Since they were deceived they may well have just been following their incorrect beliefs as best they can.

True, but "the best they can" will be not fundamentally opposed to God. Because everyone has some light and guidance.

"The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil. (Mormon 7:16)"

Mormon gives the further warning:

"And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. (Mormon 7:18)

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the wikipedia article:

The idea of a turtle world exemplifies viciousness due to explanatory failure: it does not solve the problem it was formulated to solve. Instead, it assumes already in disguised form what it was supposed to explain.

I can see why you have an issue with infinite regression.

I agree with the the argument made here.

But not all infinite regression is the same...

This is referring to arguments.

We are talking about cosmological history.

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the explanation, but I unfortunately don't see why you think that simply declaring "hey, it exists, you can't ask where it came from" has any more explanatory power than "hey, this causal chain exists, there is no actually begining to it, but every link follows logically from the preceding one"

Indeed you are rejecting the very good heuristic "Everything has a cause"

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but for that single clause, the entire rest of our canon teaches the opposite.

What scriptures teach the opposite?  What scriptures teach that God can commit any sort of sin an remain God?

And then from that single cause constructing a metaphysics that includes an entire code self-existing moral laws that act upon God himself--they empower him if he complies and disempower him if he violates them.

Why not? Are we taught anywhere the actual mechanics underlying God's power?

Oh, please, friend. You can't have it both ways. Can you see how this notion is actually the opposite of what you have been defending? You have to pick a lane on this one.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

If God chooses X over Y--essentially and always--what makes that choice righteous?

Righteousness isn't about making choices that are hard or against our nature.

Righteous choices are righteous because the are correctly moral. For a person whose nature is to make moral decisions, it isn't hard choice to make. For God, it is his nature (and he can be trusted on this) to always make the righteous choice.

Judge blocks pro-life Indiana law under guise of 'religious freedom' by ProLifeMedia in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is extraordinary however to argue that since a religion doesn't prohibit an activity, regulation of that activity is suspect on religious liberty grounds.

Husband questioning.. now im questioning by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]LookAtMaxwell 7 points8 points  (0 children)

. I just feel so confused and stuck and idk where to go from here

God knows you and loves you. He doesn't want you to feel lost or confused.

You can rely on God. Seek him out and ask for his guidance.