mordorbund

And I applaud you and your fellow mods for keeping this site clean this way. It makes it a really enjoyable experience to come on here when I’m taking a break from working on my home computer where I just made $19410 on the last three weeks. Everyone is able to get this easy work. Message me and I’ll send you the link for rewarding successs!

Interesting…

In fairness, consider the sort of mother who rears a child into a law career….

I gave you a trophy but the emoji says it’s “thanks”.

1760 yards/mile 5280 feet/mile 63360 inches per mile Nice whole numbers. 2.54 centimeters/inch 3.78 liters/gallon Tell me again about nonsense calculations.

Growing up, the kids would work a puzzle while the adults watched football or just chatted. At some point a group would rally for flag football. If any of those ran out there was always some adventure in the woods.

I would love to see it happen, but I don’t see it happening (I would love to be wrong). The article provides for the possibility that it be overturned based on two related options. Precedent can be ignored if 1) there is a previous precedent that fits better, and/or 2) the current precedent is so gerrymandered that continuing to apply it in future cases loses predictability (stability). I wish the article included more detail on what he thinks the previous precedent is (or is it implied that this isn’t really an option and I missed it?) and how future applications of Roe and Casey are untenable. As for the 3/6 prognostication: the insurance tax known as the Affordable Care Act still stings too much for me to count on Roberts upholding the doctrine he previously espoused; even at his nomination I don’t think anyone pretended Kavanaugh was a Gorsuch or Scalia; and Barret was asked multiple times about vacating Roe and it will echo into future nominees and hearings if she does (not to mention what congress may try when they consider phone calls and rallies impeachable offenses).

I find it extremely dangerous to allow third parties to extrapolate a legalistic framework for your religion (or more accurately in this case, for your acts of conscience) and bind them on you.

Useless navel-gazing.

I like Beauty and the Beast. I love the addition of If I Can’t Love Her. Gaston’s Me song is fun. Human Again can be cut as far as I’m concerned though. And Be Our Guest is well executed as a larger than life dance number (with such costuming!). I also enjoyed The Lion King. The puppetry is great! He Lives in You is a great addition to the music. I’ll admit that there’s a number of songs that don’t contribute to the narrative, but I chalk that up to world building. My kids enjoyed Aladdin but I would rather just watch the movie again. They added three sidekicks and, in Disney fashion, made them the comic relief. But Genie is already there and he is THE comic relief, so the three goofusses got tiresome quick. None of the new songs really did it for me, and they added Bollywood dancing but kept the same music so it just looked out of place for me. And the showstopper Prince Ali seemed small scale because it struck me obvious that the cast cycled through multiple times to simulate a long parade. Prince of Egypt has been put on the West End (Broadway UK). It’s written by the same fellow that did Wicked (but he also did Godspeed, Pippin, and Pocahontas, so…). One of my biggest problems with the original was that the plagues did not go on long enough. The song should emotionally wear you down (or Pharaoh at the very least) and it was cut short while I was still jamming. I hope he’s extended that song. I’ve heard Footprints in the Sand and I enjoy it. So I’m tentatively hopeful for the stage version (also, how you gonna part the sea? Please tell me you’ll flood the stage!) Oh yeah, somebody mentioned Something Rotten. If you’re thinking about going to that you’ll probably enjoy Spamalot. It’s Monty Python’s Holy Grail on stage. They sing the love song fully self aware that it’s part of a musical, included the nostalgic Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, and added a surprisingly profound (and witty) song about being all alone collectively (and with squires at their side). My brother’s a Beetlejuice fan so he’d probably enjoy the musical, but it’s not my cup of tea.

If California can close centers for addicts Hobby Lobby better watch out.

I think what’s getting lost here is YouTuber isn’t just dealing with dichotomies, even when he only offers 2 choices, instead there’s an unstated hierarchy of wants. My want at level 50 is “don’t sound pretentious” while my lower want at level 75 is “shake it up a little”. Given the rankings I will greet you with “Hello” instead of “Bonjour”. That’s how it’s going to play out. And it will play out like that every time. That being the case, why did I say “Bonjour”? YouTuber says it’s because there’s actually another want at play. At level 38 is “I want to prove YouTuber wrong about free will.” The problem as you’ve stated is that, although it is sel-consistent, it’s also circular. For addicts, “take a hit” ranks higher than “don’t” but there are addicts who don’t. Therefore they must have a third want that you don’t know about. They want “in tact family” or “steady job” or “stop breaking mom’s heart” or some other want. This philosophy is unfalsifiable. The implication of this model is if we want to change behavior we need to add a new want to the hierarchy in a higher rank, or alter the ranking al an existent want. This then leads to the second issue with this philosophy. (I’ll get there after the following paragraph). In the Hello/Bonjour example another solution that YouTuber didn’t discuss at all is that maybe there wasn’t a third want - maybe my hierarchy shifted. Every time I say “Hello” my “shake it up” want moves up the hierarchy a notch. Once it’s at 49 I say “Bonjour” and it drops down again. This is something like the infinite prisoners dilemma (there’s a good TedEd video on that) (this is also the problem with the stable marriage algorithm - it only works if everyone’s rankings stay the same). Whether Bonjour comes from a new rule or a shift in the hierarchy, it highlights the same question: Where does the hierarchy of wants come from? YouTuber is arguing a mechanical-style of free will based on the hierarchy of wants which means (hopefully I’m not presuming too much) this hierarchy falls under the nature/nurture debate but must ultimately be nurture. That is, if it is mechanistic then the current example can come from how a person was raised (outside influences) or genetics (natural influences) but if it’s ultimately mechanistic then the outside influence (culture, counter culture, parents, etc) is the result of meta-evolution and the natural influence is from evolution. Since YouTuber hasn’t expressly made this argument I won’t engage it further, but I’ll leave it here for consideration. Beyond nature and nurture I can think of two other sources for this hierarchy of wants. How bout God? The challenge here is a theological one @Traveler often raises. If a person sins because of the hierarchy God set, who is ultimately responsible for that sin? Is God just for condemning the man He preset to sin? This lead to the fourth option, that there’s something independent within the individual uncreated by God. @Just_A_Guy wrote previously about “intelligences” and while Latter-day Saints are comfortable with it, it creates a divide when discussing with credal Christians about Creation or God’s relationship to man.

I haven’t seen it. When I first heard of it I laughed. Then I saw the Tony performance (or maybe it was the German equivalent) and thought “this is actually good”. I need to listen to the album to help me decide if I actually want to see it. Or the recommendation from a trusted source. In general musicals based on movies start with one strike against them.

How about movies turned into musical plays? Have any been adapted well? Any of Dreamworks or Disney productions? Others such as The Producers, Rocky, Spamalot, or Legally Blonde?