That's why I read the news, and all the comments. I am on a long-term search to uncover how it is that a certain class of mind "thinks". Personally, I am becoming convinced that leftists are p-zombies. You can't simulate actual reasoning about real-world affairs, so the behavior of artificial, [seemingly] intelligent beings who don't seem quite right, sort of a behavioral uncanny valley, are the p-zombie red flags. These are not real people in the sense that I am a real people. That's all I got.
So, how to distill the fundamental essence underpinning the multiple facets of ID into a brief enough sentence or two that a GNU can get through before even having a chance to give in to the desire to impress his peers and make himself feel important by buttressing his woo-flagging credentials?
ID is basically an effort to rigorously model various aspects / subsystems of living systems and / or their environments, in rigorously defined contexts, so as to provide an unambiguous analysis of how the given system under consideration changes over time, and what other sorts of systems-with-changes (of more well-understood systems that change, evolve, etc.) the given phenomenon is precisely analogous to- that we can more readily appreciate and wrap our minds around- so as to be able to confidently assess whether or not the systems under consideration evolve / change in ways that fall outside of what would otherwise be considered normal probability bounds. That is to say, ID generally wants to be able to demonstrate that phenomenon X had to have taken place in life's history in precise conditions modeled Y, and that this is inescapable, this is conservative, this is bare minimum, this is indisputable. So now one and all can clearly see that phenomenon X is entirely analogous to rolling 1,000 die 1,000 times and getting all sixes each time. Or entirely analogous to finding an electron outside its orbital 10,000 out of 10,000 times. Or whatever.
This approach does not invoke potential "miracles" as they are popularly understood. Everything in such investigations has nothing to do with logically impossible events. Such events are possible in principle, which means they should be investigated.
Of course most ID proponents think the writing is on the wall and that with information (evidence) already available, it is possible (necessary) to intuit that many such known phenomena / events in life's history qualify as being extraordinarily unlikely, as per the way things normally work. But obviously until the formalizations are rigorous enough and the evidence and data are plentiful enough such that no one can disagree without being an evident fool, there is more work to be done. All the while being open to some theories about some phenomena being entirely explicable given the "normal" or "usual" behavior / probability bounds of the systems / contexts in which they are defined / modeled. This is open mindedness. This is the true pursuit of empirical knowledge.
The popular-atheists and Dawkins-cult movements however will rule out such considerations and investigations from the outset, due to philosophical convictions of which they themselves are blissfully and fervently unaware.
Why should dying brains (and the minds they help facilitate) have similar experiences at all during the process of dying? Why should there be any common elements? Why should / how could the brain be making the first person, subjective experience at all possible in this circumstance? Setting that little problem aside for the moment, it's still a bit like everyone having common elements in their dreams on Monday nights, even for those who go to bed thinking it's Tuesday.
Further, there seem to be cultural influences on these common experiences. That's just weird. All of it is fascinatingly weird.
On second thought.... I hope you are further anonymized.
Since when does "hunting someone down" universally "force confrontation"? Firstly, you don't know that he was hunting him down. Evidence (911 call) actually suggests it was a safe-distance following- and that he didn't know where Martin was, at least at one point! WHY do you ignore this???
And LOL just like a lefty to suggest that being beaten up is not sufficient to use lethal stopping force, but being FOLLOWED is LOL... It is truly PAINFUL to contemplate the workings of your brain. Because it clearly doesn't work correctly.
Meanwhile, if someone is ever following you, you can certainly make a legit claim of self defense should the urge to beat the party in pursuit come upon you. Got it!
It really is a mental disorder.
Because companies change what they can, rather than a fair cost.
Because companies charge what they can rather than what is "fair"! LOL again. As if there were some other gauge of "fairness" besides "what they can get." You people will forever scare me.... blind to the truth right in front of your eyes. That is, it is the desire to inject any notion of "fair", yours or otherwise, into the equations that is the very root of the problem- and many other problems as well.
Markets are very uninformed, true. The only thing worse, however, is know-it-alls trying to inform them (by for instance baking their all-knowing information into the rules of the games). Statists never learn....