Because there are generally multiple meanings for a given word in the dictionary, and in previous posts you have utilized multiple definitions for the same word without letting anyone else know that you're changing between them.  I can't look in the dictionary and just assume my selection is the one you selected.  The whole point of setting a definition is so that your argument stays consistent.  What doesn't change (and never has, nor ever will) are the rules of logic, and these rules state that consistency is of primary importance to a logical argument.  Inconsistency --> invalidity --> unsound.

The server was unavailable for me for the past ~1-2 hours.

Honestly, I would not be at all tempted to press the button, but would be disgusted at he who makes the offer.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

You don't by chance have an LED flat screen tv to trade for the whole card, do you?   Unfortunately, I'm pretty limited to needing what I can easily convert to cash, or what will directly help me finish my home remodeling project.  My living room needs an LED tv.

Not that one, I may have another.  Honestly though, I may just try to sell the whole computer.  That thing can rip through pretty much anything you throw at it. 

Can't knock ya for an offer, but 0.8BTC is pretty low.  Did you have anything to trade in addition to that amount?

Bump!

When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.

In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level.  The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.  

When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence.  To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it.  If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].  

If you don't think that defending one's self constitutes a need, then by extension one shouldn't need police, armymen, or SWAT teams to defend one's self, either.  I doubt you would be in favor of that.

Training is a fair point (compared to areas where someone can lawfully obtain a gun without training) but can arguably be offset by the context in which they are trained.  The nature of the jobs of military and police is one where violence is anticipated.  This is why you see, for example, police officers approach a routine traffic stop with their hands on their holsters.  The psychological expectation of violence contributes to a greater likelihood that they will be more "trigger-happy" (didn't mean that euphemistically, but for lack of a better term) and make a careless mistake themselves.  

We both have surely heard of all the deaths of unarmed citizens by police and otherwise.  Highlighting this point, do you think that the recent incident where an unarmed man flagged down police was shot and killed would have ended the same way if the man had flagged down a civilian?  Nope.  Furthermore, society often approves the use of deadly force by police in situations where a criminal has a knife, bat, or other handheld weapon.  Why?  Because the police officer was defending himself.  By extension of that logic, it should be approved that any man can defend himself against similar threats with a gun.

Edit: On 2nd thought, even "training" isn't a very good reason at all.  The reason is that the only significantly important training is that which is relevant after a threat has been identified.  Mental illness not withstanding, basically any idiot will have a good idea when a significant threat exists such that the use of a gun becomes justifiable.  Unless you have some paranoia yourself, you shouldn't have much worry about your gun-toting neighbors just lighting up the neighborhood willy-nilly.  The question is instead whether you can trust them with a gun after they have identified a legitimate threat to the safety of their selves or someone else.  In a home invasion, this won't be much of any concern because the threat is isolated to that environment.  And if everyone of sane mind has a gun, the chances decreases that a legitimate threat will exist in a public space (because a criminal knows he has no chance unless he's already committed himself to going out with guns blazing).  People don't take guns and start shooting randomly while spinning in circles.

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.

Yeah, but Smoothie made it, so he probably made an error on that, too.

Zing!    J/k  I love my set.  Free bump for the auction!

Can you think of a good reason why "lawmen" and "armymen" should automatically be granted the trust to carry weapons while your neighbors should not?  Keep in mind that nationalism is a small step away from racism (referring to armymen), and that lawmen have direct influence upon that which they stand to personally gain.

I can't think of one.  And why do so many people seem to think that banning guns will prohibit criminals from violating the ban in the same ways they already dodge the ban on criminal behaviors?  

Honestly, when you turn off the news, it's not so bad. If I hadn't watched any news in the past two decades, the only noticeable differences in daily life would probably be whittled down to some inflated gas and food prices, tightened airport security, better technology, and a lot of silly music and clothing outfits.  9/11 what?

Aside from the weird fact that you seem to think that someone getting caught and thrown in jail offsets your wife being raped (wtf?), I think you forgot the part where he blows your heads off, anyway.

But hey, good thing he got those 25 years afterward, right? 

Criminal:  (Breaks through your front door).  Alright motherf*cker, here's the deal.  I'm taking your money, I'm raping your wife, and I'm blowing your heads off.

You:  Wait wait wait.  Time-out.  I'm calling the police.  You're in big trouble, mister.

Criminal:  *Blows your head off.*

Gee, your plan sounded so great on paper.

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?

Read my post above.  Some police agencies have apparently implemented a policy that you are barred from being a police officer if your IQ is too high.  The decision was upheld in a Federal lawsuit.

Well, that escalated quickly 


Oh, you angel.