+57

About probably a month ago I heard a mentioning about how the atomic bombs "ended the war" and it immediately brought to me the thought of being where I hear claims of benefits for 9/11 done, instead, by the stronger and wining side.  

+56

I mentioned before that I once saw on the internet the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court speaking about their need to explain themselves. If the opinion for that cake maker was written with that consideration and arrived like this, what would have happened had it not? I think that the main question to be answered in the mind of any reader is whether the decision taken against the cake shop owner was correct or not. The court on the other hand spoke about the process of reaching that decision without providing any explanation why that should replace looking at the end result as the main question or Why the process couldn't be taken as a separate question instead.      

+55

Although I do not know if considering this could have affected things related to that cake maker case but I want to point out that the original purpose of that related law or the beginning root purpose of such laws may have not been to give minorities the luxury of forced acceptance but instead to protect them from the hardship of refusal.

+54

I wonder if those judges will later author a book titled Gymnastic of The Judiciary. Anyway I intend to think about the point deduction related to that cake maker case in Colorado.  

+53

Continuing from the preceding post:

However, shouldn't taking how the process of interest balancing was implemented for the validity of the end result, be used when you try to guess that validity from far not when you have the argument and even the arguing parties available for you to decide? Where else did the court use its decision making power to invalidate the result of an earlier process arguing insufficiency of that process while it has the argument available for it to decide the question of the validity of that same end result itself? The opinion of the court did not say anything about why it could not do that. All the talk about hostility to religion, while maybe gone after on a different ground,  matter only for the issue of constitutional freedom of religion in as much as it led to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Otherwise, the process itself does not matter in that regard.

Like I said earlier, I do not feel okay with unneeded forcing of somebody to violate his religion or beliefs but this is about the role of the court as merely applying the laws at hand.

+52

A little while ago I wrote a post under the number above severely criticizing the Supreme Court opinion on that Cake maker case (assuming no compromise is accepted on its rule as merely applying the law). But apparently I missed something making more sense than I took from what it said. Here is the simple thing which in my view the court did not sufficiently point out but would have made the opinion look to many readers like me, less strange. I also have been wondering about the difficulty in applying the religion clause of the First Amendment. It seems as if a big part of that is done through an interest balancing approach for related laws on the religious freedom of a person versus the interest of the state. It appears that in order to do that at least some laws related to the issue are not judged for constitutional conformity in their general form but instead until they are applied and that is why you see in the opinion how the law was applied on a specific case was taken as an indication for the validity or invalidity of the end result there.

+51

Continuing from the preceding post:

The more one moves away from this city toward the east of the big city the more it feels like being in a different world despite the physical proximity of the two.

+50

As a sample suggesting how much there is a desire to deny service on discriminating bases in this city, this incident happened to me today at Home Depot store #740. I wanted a 10 feet water pipe to be cut so I took it to where there is a sign stating "Cutting Center". Apparently because of the generality of that, I got confused and forgot that cutting such pipe happens at a different section. But what did the guy who came with me to do the cutting job do after knowing what I wanted to be cut? Did he try to direct me to the correct location for that? No, he just insisted that it cant be done on the machine there and sometimes used the word "here" to express that, which, especially in combination with the generality mentioned above could make one see it as referring to the entire store. He did not point me to the correct place for the task or even just tell me there is such place despite asking him about the entire store explicitly. On the contrary his answer would have probably made a trusting person who had not done this before there to leave the store thinking that they do not cut water pipes there.  

+49

Actually, that example in the preceding post was not randomly chosen but what pushed away postponing pointing out the core content of that post. A special focus, if not the main focus, was to oppose any judge especially Supreme Court judges who maintain that such claim was made because to me it is a horrifying thing. I think that such difference between existence and nonexistence should be clear especially to a judge and am very interested, if not in need, to see what argument supports what opposes my position on that claim. In fact it never occurred to me that there could be Supreme Court judges on the opposing side here until I saw what made me fear that could be the case after mentioning this as example elsewhere. Another thing that only occurred to me as a probability after I made that post. because of something I saw, was that post could be seen about my case. I would have posted the same with or without my case and it feels very frustrating to be taken that way this easily despite all what I have written. I am also very capable of seeing that I could be vehemently opposed on one issue while joined on the other by the same person, regardless of which of those two reactions put at the front. 

By the way, despite how intensely I wrote about not removing Saddam from power in the earlier war and the massacre that happened to the people after the uprising as a consequence to him being in power, I do not maintain that any promise for removing him from power was made from the government here and would oppose anyone from there claiming otherwise.            

+48

Weather it is a country, a party, an ethnicity, or anything else, I think that generally people here may need to watch out carefully for this group belonging seeking or maintaining from sliding them immorally because, while one may not perceive such difference on direct self serving things, this seems to have much stronger pull on people here than elsewhere. For example, if you are a member of the Democratic Party and claim that the government of the second Bush claimed a connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11 then, because of how much I was watching those things during that time (those were real news not the current jokes), unless you show me something supporting your position I missed then I am troubled with the probability of you making an immoral stand and being a false wittiness especially if I do not perceive you as easily confusing emotions you see with statement making. 

+47: My Best Health investment

I have been postponing pointing out this for a long time. The best health investment I have made was buying one of those over the counter oil pressers (mine was of the nutrishef brand and its cost was around $250) then starting buying flax seed at bulk and extracting oil from it. I also bought a manual one which I do not use but I took its advice of adding a little water to the flax seed then waiting two days before I start using from it and applied that to my electric one to get the oil without heating the seeds (still there is a six minuets time for the machine to heat itself). It is just a little amount of water. For example, a table spoon for each cup of flax seeds might be seen as reducing the amount of extracted oil because of too much water (Although, I may accept the lower oil yield trying to lower the temperature of the extraction process further with the extra water). I do not know if in the future more side effect would be discovered for omega 3 against all  the current pointing out to its benefit currently but I have not experienced a noticeable change in me like the one that comes from increasing the amount or ratio of omega 3 generally or relative to omega 6 (combined with the simple exercise of brisk walking probably because it is still oil and you need to help your heart pumping it). Every time that amount or ratio increases or decreases I feel the change in my health like pressing a button on some machine to cause some effect. When the amount or ratio is low I drag myself to workout a little bit. when the amount or ratio is high I feel ready to do significantly more workout. It is like cheating on one's age. 
Note: When I started this process I read some talk about a relation between increasing consumption of flax seed oil and increased probability for prostate cancer. I also read some talk that seems to be associating that risk with pure flax seed oil. This is one of the reasons I always insist on consuming, in addition to the oil, whatever falls into the oil container through the filter in the extraction process.        

   

+46

That is it! My mind was messed up by the Americans. Now I convert weight from kilo grams to pounds in order to understand them.

+45

Continuing from the preceding post:

Back to the meaning of that movie and how unfitting is what seems to be wide spread view for it as sending positive message about religion through its main character instead of being about the deceptiveness of the latter and the use of religion for that purpose. I don't even need to take too much from the movie to support my understanding here. Instead I think there are at least two things that seems to suggest that in a highly direct way. First look at the behaviour of that main character in dating that woman and what he was asking her. Second, look at how much there was a justification (or a lack of it) for the way he behaved toward that man who entered his church then look again at how he behaved toward that same man when the latter returned with more power. 
And since we are talking about the scene of that guy coming back, how about the way the bible was physically used directly and as a representation for what is really is serving or being sacrificed for what?   

Unlike the real world where one may  get confused how much weight he should give to signs he sees, in a movie or a novel you know a significance was attached to something by merely  including or bringing the focus to it. So if you cant recognize such a character despite knowing about the intended  effort in the latter what would you do in the former? And by the way that was not a very high grade of character deception (The word "character" was used here to refer to the type of deception not the type of the deceiving entity as being a character in a movie or a story).

+44

After I saw the movie "The Apostle" I wondered how many would be inclined like me to see the issue as what I call deceptive psychotic personality rather than religion. To my surprise at least most of the discussions and comments I read seem to have not recognized the deception and fakeness of the main character to begin with. Instead they seem to have taken a positive message about that character and some even seems to have been affected by the religious message coming through that character in the movie despite the signs shown against its sincerity and how at least one of the preaching scenes seems to have carried an unavoidable mocking tone. So, ironically, because of that I myself want to focus on religion first here. Is the believe of some in their religion is so not dependent on facts but instead merely on the power of suggestion that they can be affected even by something that itself lacked that much intended showing of sincerity? Could the choosing of a religion look more like toying or, at best,  shopping for things like that?

Of course freedom of religion is very essential. But even better than that is if persons from different believes all of them on their own willingly choose to seek the truth and get into a discussion for that and one of the things I think about doing in the future is that. Although, frankly speaking, I feel envious by how some facts makes it hard for me to argue against not choosing my religion while so many people enjoy the freedom of religion to the level of believing in a religion that if it were filed as a lawsuit it would have been dismissed for failure to state a claim (Christianity in its obscure form as Jesus being the son of God) even before getting into the stage of trying to prove things. 

As much as religion is taken as a response to facts and arguments as much as it could be like a burden especially if those facts and arguments strengthen but still stop short of proving things and instead leaves one feels like stranded in between. However, if there is another person in a similar position but with an opposing view then even if getting into a discussion with him may not convince either to change his view why not lower his burden with mine and mine with his?