Even toilet has multiple definitions. And the primary one changes based on context (like all words) and greatly based on location. "I'm going to brush my teeth in the toilet" in the US would indicate use of toilet water to brush one's teeth. But in the UK would indicate going to a room with a toilet to brush one's teeth. So the meaning of the word changes based on usage (as all words) as well as the accent of the speaker. We can't do it as people very well, nor can we conceive of how to program a computer to do it. It won't be until strong AI is solved when we'll get such thinking programs that are smarter than us (at which time 99% of doctors will be holograms, as such an AI will be superior to a human doctor for everything except possibly bedside manner.
You could argue that single-word (such as "Samantha") could intelligently be translated by the universal translator successfully, even when used in such an idiomatic construct. But a sentence which depends entirely on the context ("Darmok at Blahblah" might well refer to an entirely different Darmok, or not even to a person at all) is vastly harder, if not impossible, to translate.
When a universal translator is possible, the pattern matching of it would be superior to a humans. If a human could solve it, the UT will solve it faster, even in such an allegorical language.
I read the reference. You claimed seizures. There was nothing in your reference that indicated any seizure at all. You lied, and lied about lying. You are incapable of supporting your previous assertion, so i can only deduce you are wrong. And your continued lies about it don't support your position. Given you made it seem so obvious and directed others to Google (and Google didn't support you) and you couldn't find a single support for your assertion, either.
What's truly sad is that your mental illness will have my future lack of responses to your lies as "proof" that you are correct, and you'll count your previous "opinion" as more correct because nobody has proven you wrong, despite everyone having proven you wrong. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
No, you have to pay taxes on earned income. It's all held in shares held by family trusts. They pat 15% or less income tax on it, and only when the spend it, not earn it. It's a completely different tax system from what "we" live under.
Hmm, well since you specifically spoke out against polygamist and called them all immoral (and other poor stereotypes), I'd say that you are the liar in context of this thread.
Ah, more lies to distract from your other lies. I searched this thread, and never did I (or anyone else, before you) use the word "immoral". I didn't call "them" anything. I stated that the laws can't handle any full-mesh marriages, and only polygyny would be possible without a major re-write of many laws.
But don't let your lies distract from your claims that polygamists are currently prosecuted. Show me one from the past 100 years (your asserted time frame) where a polygamist in violation of no other laws had anything seized. If not, then you are nothing but a liar, lying about lies, and lying about what others say.
Moving on to the most famous case fitting the scope you asked. Short Creek, Arizona was the largest mass arrest of polygamists in modern times.
After reading your cite, there was no indication of any seizure, and indication it was later re-inhabited by others (proving it wasn't seized). So again, you've proven yourself a lying jackass, but haven't posted a single thing supporting your assertions. But I'm sure that's because of my bigotry.
you've already stated that your form of morality allows anything that keeps your jack-booted thug masters in power.
Ah, more lies by the lying liar and the lying lies he tells.
Now you are lying again. I never said anything about my opinion on polygamy. I just stated that the "real" reason the government doesn't like it is that, taken to extremes, would cause a collapse of the legal system. If everyone was married to everyone else, how would taxes work? How do you decide the head of household for the IRS, if the married troupe includes more than one household? You don't address any of the reasons, then lie about my position.
But that's all there to hide your initial lies. You stated that in the past 100 years, the US government has stolen from polygamous families. I couldn't find a single case in your listed timeframe that wasn't listed as a seizure for a different listed reason (the fact there was polygamy wasn't connected), and you refused, what, 4 times now to cite a single case. So lies. You've not posted a single post that wasn't all lies. Sounds like the morals of a polygamist...
You are a natural-born American, not a native American. But I expect you knew that, and you are lying to start a fight with anyone that corrects your lies. Much like a friend of mine from Buenos Aires who insisted on calling himself "an American" with the intention of deceiving others to thinking he was from the USA.
So your non sequitur is there to indicate you agree that you were lying in indicating that seizures for polygamy (and nothing else) is a common and recent thing. Glad to hear your concession and apology. At least the closest to one you are capable of.
from https://www.google.com/#q=us+c..., the closest to what you are asserting is http://www.latinopost.com/arti... where someone had his ranch seized where he was raping his children, and a polygamist. Is that all you got? Rapist child abusers who also happen to be polygamists should have a polygamy shield?
So the one that uses the word "bigot" is a bigot against bigots? When you use such definitions and such tautologies, then yes, nobody who uses the word "bigot" wants to have a discussion with you. Of course, nobody wants to have a discussion with you.
I never said it made him a Nazi. Someone else questioned the integrity/accuracy of the media. I was just pointing out that, in general, the verifiable facts (like a photo of Kim) are rarely faked.
I'd expect that it'd be a good investment. One of only 20 signed 1st edition books is quite a find. Though, because of the stigma, this particular signed first edition is not worth that much, but another 100 years, and maybe it'll be worth a lot more than today. It's not like there'll ever be more.
He also said a Nazi flag he got for a birthday was "the best present ever" and used an SS helmet for a helmet in a car race. No idea what his persona beliefs are, but he has a "thing" for Nazi things.
When marriage is controlled by the government, poly must be illegal. For human rights reasons, it's presumed a human rights violation, where the "single" in a group is the male, and the multiples are female, and have a lower standard than the male. But from a more practical governmetn stance, two married people are legally the same person (they can't be compelled to testify against themselves, and have survivorship and such that the death of one doesn't affect the finances or access to those finances of the other). But what happens if you marry someone, and the marry someone else? Do all three people become the same person? must both in the existing marriage marry the new person, or can one person get multiple marriages without the others knowing?
Then there are the sociatal logistics that aren't prepared. A child would have 3 parents. So, one of the parents has no blood, and no (under current laws) legal claim for their dependent. That's mostly unworkable. How many lines would you need on a birth certificate for parents?
Usually when poly was "allowed" it was only one man and multiple women. With one woman and multiple men, how would children be tracked? In the "old way" the man was the father, and the woman the mother. But when the biologiacal father isn't known, do you mandate DNA tests at birth to determine the birth parents? And if an entire town were to decide to get married, what would stop 10,000 people from marrying each other in a full-mesh poly marriage? With curent property rules, how would you handle the death of a single member of the group? Everything divided equally? Or, more the way the rules work now, everyone in the 10,000 group is 100% owner of everything owned by any single member of the group.
The real reason poly is impossible is that the laws were written so that poly (one man, limited wives) was the only poly considered, and "marriage" defined by law assumes two people. Changing those basic assumptions would be problematic.
So the issue of "gay marriage" is unrelated to poly. Seems poly is generally brought up by those that oppose gay marriage, looking for holes when the two are unrelated.
If the Muslims and Mormons want to define marriage to have their polygamy, then that is who defines marriage for them.
In most cases, those are "illegal" discrimintory marriages. Women aren't allowed to have multiple husbands, but men are allowed multiple wives. The men don't need to consult the previous wives before adding more, and if the women could do the same, you could end up in a situation with everyone in the planet married to each other, and the only question is number of degrees of separation. So illegal discrimination is required for them to be workable, making them impractical, and not because of dislaike of the lifestyle or those who would live it, but from the ability for it to coexist with today's basic legal framework.
Knowing there's be a smartass/jackass out there, I gave a specific example. Rather than picking some comments out of context and ripping them apart, address the example I gave:
If your boss was a neo-Nazi, and he donated to anti-minority groups, would that matter to you?
Go on, answer that question. Would it matter if he gave money to the IRA or al Qadea?
So you would work for the man and do what you can to support him in the workplace? Or would it hurt your morale in some manner to be beholder to such a person?
Slashdot Mirror
You could argue that single-word (such as "Samantha") could intelligently be translated by the universal translator successfully, even when used in such an idiomatic construct. But a sentence which depends entirely on the context ("Darmok at Blahblah" might well refer to an entirely different Darmok, or not even to a person at all) is vastly harder, if not impossible, to translate.
When a universal translator is possible, the pattern matching of it would be superior to a humans. If a human could solve it, the UT will solve it faster, even in such an allegorical language.
I read the reference. You claimed seizures. There was nothing in your reference that indicated any seizure at all. You lied, and lied about lying. You are incapable of supporting your previous assertion, so i can only deduce you are wrong. And your continued lies about it don't support your position. Given you made it seem so obvious and directed others to Google (and Google didn't support you) and you couldn't find a single support for your assertion, either.
What's truly sad is that your mental illness will have my future lack of responses to your lies as "proof" that you are correct, and you'll count your previous "opinion" as more correct because nobody has proven you wrong, despite everyone having proven you wrong. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
No, you have to pay taxes on earned income. It's all held in shares held by family trusts. They pat 15% or less income tax on it, and only when the spend it, not earn it. It's a completely different tax system from what "we" live under.
Hmm, well since you specifically spoke out against polygamist and called them all immoral (and other poor stereotypes), I'd say that you are the liar in context of this thread.
Ah, more lies to distract from your other lies. I searched this thread, and never did I (or anyone else, before you) use the word "immoral". I didn't call "them" anything. I stated that the laws can't handle any full-mesh marriages, and only polygyny would be possible without a major re-write of many laws.
But don't let your lies distract from your claims that polygamists are currently prosecuted. Show me one from the past 100 years (your asserted time frame) where a polygamist in violation of no other laws had anything seized. If not, then you are nothing but a liar, lying about lies, and lying about what others say.
Moving on to the most famous case fitting the scope you asked. Short Creek, Arizona was the largest mass arrest of polygamists in modern times.
After reading your cite, there was no indication of any seizure, and indication it was later re-inhabited by others (proving it wasn't seized). So again, you've proven yourself a lying jackass, but haven't posted a single thing supporting your assertions. But I'm sure that's because of my bigotry.
you've already stated that your form of morality allows anything that keeps your jack-booted thug masters in power.
Ah, more lies by the lying liar and the lying lies he tells.
Now you are lying again. I never said anything about my opinion on polygamy. I just stated that the "real" reason the government doesn't like it is that, taken to extremes, would cause a collapse of the legal system. If everyone was married to everyone else, how would taxes work? How do you decide the head of household for the IRS, if the married troupe includes more than one household? You don't address any of the reasons, then lie about my position.
But that's all there to hide your initial lies. You stated that in the past 100 years, the US government has stolen from polygamous families. I couldn't find a single case in your listed timeframe that wasn't listed as a seizure for a different listed reason (the fact there was polygamy wasn't connected), and you refused, what, 4 times now to cite a single case. So lies. You've not posted a single post that wasn't all lies. Sounds like the morals of a polygamist...
You are a natural-born American, not a native American. But I expect you knew that, and you are lying to start a fight with anyone that corrects your lies. Much like a friend of mine from Buenos Aires who insisted on calling himself "an American" with the intention of deceiving others to thinking he was from the USA.
So your non sequitur is there to indicate you agree that you were lying in indicating that seizures for polygamy (and nothing else) is a common and recent thing. Glad to hear your concession and apology. At least the closest to one you are capable of.
from https://www.google.com/#q=us+c..., the closest to what you are asserting is http://www.latinopost.com/arti... where someone had his ranch seized where he was raping his children, and a polygamist. Is that all you got? Rapist child abusers who also happen to be polygamists should have a polygamy shield?
So the one that uses the word "bigot" is a bigot against bigots? When you use such definitions and such tautologies, then yes, nobody who uses the word "bigot" wants to have a discussion with you. Of course, nobody wants to have a discussion with you.
Why would you expect you could have a reasoned discussion with a bigot? Bigotism is unreasonable.
I haven't seen that. How much was "stolen" by the US government since 1914? Or was it 150 years ago, and stolen from a church, not "families"?
They made more than 20 BC, and bitcoins have no connection to a person, except maybe some old physicist who claims no connection.
I never attributed any meaning to it. You did. I only questioned someone else's unsubstantiated condemnation of the media.
I never said it made him a Nazi. Someone else questioned the integrity/accuracy of the media. I was just pointing out that, in general, the verifiable facts (like a photo of Kim) are rarely faked.
I'd expect that it'd be a good investment. One of only 20 signed 1st edition books is quite a find. Though, because of the stigma, this particular signed first edition is not worth that much, but another 100 years, and maybe it'll be worth a lot more than today. It's not like there'll ever be more.
He also said a Nazi flag he got for a birthday was "the best present ever" and used an SS helmet for a helmet in a car race. No idea what his persona beliefs are, but he has a "thing" for Nazi things.
So the photos of him in an SS helmet are also not true, the proof being that the pictures were in the New Zealand media proves it never happened?
So, then the article is wrong. There is no current policy to force the haircut mentioned.
Why are you out with your daughter at the bar at 4 a.m.?
So the fact that a bunch of visitors haven't seen a sudden growth in Jong-un-style haircuts neither proves nor disproves the original claim.
So visitors watching men walking out of a barber shop with 1 of the 10 (and not a Jong-un-style) doesn't debunk the original claim?
People seemed to care that David Duke was linked to the KKK.
Then there are the sociatal logistics that aren't prepared. A child would have 3 parents. So, one of the parents has no blood, and no (under current laws) legal claim for their dependent. That's mostly unworkable. How many lines would you need on a birth certificate for parents?
Usually when poly was "allowed" it was only one man and multiple women. With one woman and multiple men, how would children be tracked? In the "old way" the man was the father, and the woman the mother. But when the biologiacal father isn't known, do you mandate DNA tests at birth to determine the birth parents? And if an entire town were to decide to get married, what would stop 10,000 people from marrying each other in a full-mesh poly marriage? With curent property rules, how would you handle the death of a single member of the group? Everything divided equally? Or, more the way the rules work now, everyone in the 10,000 group is 100% owner of everything owned by any single member of the group.
The real reason poly is impossible is that the laws were written so that poly (one man, limited wives) was the only poly considered, and "marriage" defined by law assumes two people. Changing those basic assumptions would be problematic.
So the issue of "gay marriage" is unrelated to poly. Seems poly is generally brought up by those that oppose gay marriage, looking for holes when the two are unrelated.
If the Muslims and Mormons want to define marriage to have their polygamy, then that is who defines marriage for them.
In most cases, those are "illegal" discrimintory marriages. Women aren't allowed to have multiple husbands, but men are allowed multiple wives. The men don't need to consult the previous wives before adding more, and if the women could do the same, you could end up in a situation with everyone in the planet married to each other, and the only question is number of degrees of separation. So illegal discrimination is required for them to be workable, making them impractical, and not because of dislaike of the lifestyle or those who would live it, but from the ability for it to coexist with today's basic legal framework.
Which anti-minority group?
Knowing there's be a smartass/jackass out there, I gave a specific example. Rather than picking some comments out of context and ripping them apart, address the example I gave:
If your boss was a neo-Nazi, and he donated to anti-minority groups, would that matter to you?
Go on, answer that question. Would it matter if he gave money to the IRA or al Qadea?
And you object to the right of the workers to hold an opinion?
So you would work for the man and do what you can to support him in the workplace? Or would it hurt your morale in some manner to be beholder to such a person?