Recent Comments

1. 5 days ago on Non Sequitur

   Black people in the US tend to be more quickly viewed and treated as criminals, and the police routinely are far more eager to use force, including deadly force in areas where white people don’t see the same treatment. That bias has been seen in multiple major police departments across the US.

2. 5 days ago on Non Sequitur

   Depends on the location of the bar. From what I’ve heard, either side can be extremely safe in the proper specific parts of the US.

3. 5 days ago on Non Sequitur

   I’m envious of how Britain handles their elections. It’s set for within a specific number of weeks, and at a small fraction of America’s campaign spending.

4. 5 days ago on Non Sequitur

   Agreed. One promised to indict Hillary Clinton when campaigning for the 2016 election, and has been arguing for the legal prosecution of the disproven 2020 election fraud. This is while consistently pressuring his political party to indict the current president with fictitious crimes, while simultaneously arguing for the complete abandonment of criminal responsibility for presidents.

   Of course, that’s not at all related to members of the public deciding whether to indict on existing facts of the case, before going to court where that evidence is presented, with both parties being allowed to argue for and against the facts of the case. Prosecution at the direction of the government and in the absence of facts is not, has not, and should not be how criminal cases are run in any country with a democracy. And that is not what we see in US courts today.

5. 5 days ago on Non Sequitur

   You can’t sentence the already dead.

6. 10 days ago on Non Sequitur

   He left the rat race, only to find the loser as his dinner.

7. 24 days ago on Non Sequitur

   In other words, you don’t know what it is, so you know what it is. Left handedness and epileptic seizures were proof of Satan. Hurricanes and tornadoes were proof of god’s wrath. Droughts were proof of god’s absence, and lightning was proof of Thor. Whenever something has been proven to have previously been believed as coming from or through a god, that god has yet to be proven to be the answer.

   Also, I’ve already clarified that what’s known is “the big bang” was a quick and massive expansion of what already existed, so didn’t need to come from anywhere. The argument of “nothing is infinite, and nothing can come from nothing” is often used to back the belief that a god is infinite, and created everything from nothing. Until gods can be proven to exist through science, gods are not a part of science, just like science based entirely on faith isn’t science.

8. 25 days ago on Non Sequitur

   The standard concept of a god is something that does not exist in reality, and has no real way of proving or disproving its existence. It fits scientifically with leprechauns, unicorns, and elves, with the argument against being the absolute proof of any evidence for.

   The “big bang” is a popular misnomer for the quantum inflation on a scaler field, where all of the matter already existed, but was previously condensed to the level where time itself stopped. Black holes work pretty much the same way, where the flow of time drastically slows down just a little past the event horizon. The math and evidence only points to the existence of the point of the sudden rapid expansion of all matter, and if any evidence exists which points to anything else, it has yet to be found.

   Something happened, and we’re able to see what happened, even if we have yet to understand what happened prior to that 1/10^34 of a second. (That’s prior to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds of the universe existing.) Science follows the evidence where it leads, and it leads to our current understanding. You’re saying to dismiss it until we understand 100% of it.

9. 27 days ago on Non Sequitur

   Off the top of my head, quantum redshifting proves the mathematics to an extent, with the verification of ripples in space time (better known as gravity waves) providing even firmer proof. And my profession is not at all in the area of astrophysics.

   As I stated earlier in this thread, a scientific theory is supported by the available evidence, and destroyed by evidence against it. What evidence do you have which goes against the established evidence?

10. 29 days ago on Non Sequitur

    It’s probably safe to say that Jeffrey will never be a public school teacher. Which is fortunate, because Danae might very well still be struggling in public school when Jeffrey would become one.