It all started with the railroad actually. At first all the towns would have their own time, which corresponded with where the sun was during the day. But then, when the railroad was built for trading and passenger transport, all of the town's had to have the right time in order to catch the train so everyone would link their clocks with the railroad time. There were actually "time wars" where towns would protest in favour of having their own time, because they had become personally attached to their autonomy of time. Trrue story.

We will never know. No love has ever endure all conditions. One's love would have to be tested in, and prevail through,

every condition imaginable in order to prove that unconditional love exists

Chess is not a sport. At some point in the future, when the two worlds best chess champions get together for a chess match, each competitor will know every move that will follow their opponents first move and vise versa, resulting in the same chess match every time, which will end in a stale mate. This is already happening. There was a match not too long ago where the two finalists who faced each other did their first 16 moves without even having to think because once the first move was made all 31 other moves followed logically, according to "the book". That's what they call the chess book which contains every possible match ever played (or so they say) and is constantly being updated with new matches that are discovered; by new matches I mean a new sequence of moves. There are a finite number of chess games that can be played and even fewer that will end up winning you the game, and so once chess players learn every move from start to finish for this best possible set of moves, their opponent will learn how to counter it equally well. Eventually Chess will not be competative because no one can be the best.

So, my point is, Chess can not be a sport because the outcome of the game will eventually be predictable with 100% certainty, whereas with sports that is not the case.

Sorry, I just realized that sounded more personal then it needed to be. I mean that in the Christian faith there isn't much room to allow for change in our environment if you live your life according to "the book".

So, the question is, do you feel that transgenderism is wrong because you are living by "the book" and you 'inherited' your views that way, or do you think you would have come to that conclusion on your own despite your religious background?

Loved your breakdown, so thank you, but I think you may have wasted your time. You can't argue against hard Christians because they let their faith close off their minds to the changing world, impairing their sense of curiosity and filtering out things that don't aid their faith in the Christian God. It sucks. Im only talking about real die-hard Christians of course.

My question to both of you:

Do you think transgenderism is a psychological disorder?

There is more time left in the sun's life than Earth has been around, around 6 billion years. If we have gone from apes to what we are now in only a fraction of that time, then we will go from humans to robots in even less time. When I say robots I mean parts of us will be machine - likely the parts that wouldn't survive in space or that would fail to keep us alive in space would be modified at least. I think colonizing space is absolutely necessary and so it will be possible with proper planning.

I don't think it will be as simple as locating "criminal genes" because there are way too many other variables involved leading up to the criminal behaviour itself, but I do believe that the focus will shift from finding who is to blame after the crime to who is most likely to committ the crime in the first place.

As it stands, there are people in law enforcement who's job is to determine a criminal's likelihood of future recitivism. These people have had 35+ years experience in law enforcement and they are deemed to be the best at predicting this kind of behaviour. Right now these people are only about 50% accurate in their guess on whether the criminal will reoffend...so you may as well flip a coin. However, there is a new questionnaire that has been developed that is about 70% accurate in its predictions. This means that with a few well worded questions we can get to a point more significant than chance in determining future behaviour. When technology improves we will be able to see that an overdevelopment or underdevelopment of certain areas of the brain are perhaps more predictive, and once that number reaches 90...maybe 95% accuracy what then?

Are we going to live in a world where we are punishing criminals before they even commit a crime?

I think your idea of preventative measures will have to come into play here. If whatever causes criminal behaviour, whether it be the lack of self control or the desire to cause harm, is detectible then how do we get rid of it if we know it's there?

What kind of preventative measures would be appropriate? Do you think that the new punishment for a crime committed would be to turn that person into a non-criminal through brain surgery or something? What would that look like?

I would argue that when the baby becomes a conscious being is when it is too late to abort.

I have to admit, my argument might sound a little harsh, but it's one of my honest philosophies on life and I truly believe it.

Do any of you remember anything before the age of one? How about before the age of 6 months? Probably not, right? I believe this is because we are sensory creatures right after birth. Just touching, sucking, reacting to the world around us in a cause and effect way. As we do this our neurons start making connections in our brain and neural networks begin to branch across the cortex, and then finally after enough sensory stimuli in our initial phase of life our consciousness comes online and we are suddenly remembering, learning, predicting. We can reflect on things all of a sudden, we are human.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to abort a child any time before that point in the child's life. However, I do think there should still be laws against killing a baby after birth, haha, I'm not that sick.

I was actually just thinking about this the other day after listening to a podcast.

I think the focus of the criminal justice system right now is blameworthiness. The goal who is to find the person responsible for the crime, or in other words who to blame, and punish them with a justified penalty.

Blameworthiness seems to work, so that's all fine and dandy, we will just keep catching criminals, BUT what happens when that person was not in their "right mind" when committing the crime? Well, it turns out that with modern brain imaging you can see tumours in people brains, tumours that can sometimes cause irrational and irregular thoughts, which then cause irrational and irregular behaviours. In court, if you have a tumour in your brain that caused you to be out of your "right mind" while committing the crime, you can use that brain image of your tumour as a biological mitigator, completely removing the blame from the person to the tumour.

Think about that for a second. The only thing special about a tumour is its visibility; the fact that we can see a tumour with our modern brain imaging is what makes it special. What happens next? At the current rate of technological advancement in brain imaging techniques, in about 5-10 years we will be using xMRI scanners instead of fMRI scanners and we will be able to detect abnormalities at the neuronal level. There will be new psychological disorders of the neurocircuitry and we would be able to use those as biological mitigators in court as well.

The point is, we can't continue with this focus of blameworthiness because it will be too difficult to decide whether it was an abnormality in the brain that caused the crime or the person using the brain, for lack of an easier description.

I think the purpose of the judicial system is going to shift from blamworthiness to detecting the chance of future recidivism. We will eventually be able to detect, with significant accuracy, the likelihood that someone will committ a crime again. Those people who are the most likely to reoffend will need help, perhaps sessions of cognitive behaviour therapy to help change their brain chemistry, or maybe a microsurgery to rewire a few neural connections that shouldn't be there (we don't have this technology yet but I'm just speculating).

It's amazing how scientific discoveries can change how we conduct our human affairs.