Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced.Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'.Analysis of more than 15,000 people.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
Should we allow a Gattaca-like world to come into existence? Like human cloning, the idea of genetically modifying our offspring still falls within the realms of illegality and taboo. Its supporters call it human trait selection; it’s opponents derogatively refer to it as designer babies. Either way, it would allow parents to select the characteristics of their progeny, including non-medical attributes like hair and eye color, height, intelligence, greater empathy, sexual orientation, personality type, and basically any other genetically influenced trait.From I09
At my public high-school in New Zealand the science department has some posters up which support atheism. One such example is a poster which quotes Richard Dawkins saying *"How thoughtful of God to arrange matters so that, wherever you happen to be born, the local religion always turns out to be the true one."* There are other atheist and anti-theist posters up around our science department. My question is: Is this okay?I thought this would be interesting, as the usual conversation about this sort of thing is centered on public schools condoning religion, especially in the U.S. I definitely believe that to put up posters supporting a religion in a public school is wrong, and I'll post my argument concerning atheist posters (and similar things that condone atheism) below. NOTE: I am not looking for an argument as to whether or not it *is* legal, but as to whether or not it *should be* legal. Also, anybody who says that atheism is a religion, will be banned immediately. As per usual, keep things civil in this debate. I also don't want this debate to get into whether or not a god exists, let's try and remain neutral here.
Religious people often speak about choosing to accept God into one's heart, but is this really a choice? Is whether or not someone believes dependent on things they can't help, like the way their brain is built, the environment they were brought up in,knowledge, or indoctrination, or is there an element of choice? This could also extend to a free will debate, if your mind is set to work a certain way, then you are set to respond to things a certain way, you have no say in the mind you are born with, so perhaps you have no free will, just an illusion.If the correct answer is no, belief is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?Edit: I didn't intend for this to be an argument about indoctrination, I meant for it to be about free will in the way that Galen Strawson theorizes. Your mind is set a certain way, so perhaps your beliefs (and actions) are too, only being affected by other circumstances you cannot control.
I support LGBT rights. I like small government with less social programs. I'm not real crazy about immigrants (especially Muslims). I respect most religions of the world (unless they are fascist in their doctrine) but I don't believe in prayer in school or government. I'm pro choice. I support capital punishment.
This debate is limited to the confines of Christianity. The affirmative side argues that there is a god who is capable of, and actively influences the lives of humans. The negative team argues that no such higher power exists.
Human beings have an overwhelming sense that they can choose how they act; I might get up and make up a cup of tea, or I might change my mind and make a cup of coffee instead, or I might choose to not get up at all. The future seems open and up to us - a kind of forking path that lies ahead. Yet, some philosophers argue that this is just an illusion. Are all of human actions determined? Is the future fixed?
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/european-nations-points-entry-struggle-contain-migrant-crisis/?utm_content=buffer01991&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=lifezette_bufferEuropean Nations at Points of Entry Grow Desperate as Migrant Crisis RagesGreek authorities put down 'uprising' at refugee processing center, Italian officials lash out at EU neighbors
You know as they say, the last words of a dying man are very important. This is not just any man but a scientist who claimed there was no evidence for heaven and hell therefore debunked religion.**In my Father’s house are many mansions. John 14:2Some years ago a famous industrialist asked me to come and see him. His wife had died, leaving him with a terrible sense of grief and loss. He wanted assurance that he would be reunited with her someday. “Do you truly believe,” he asked me, “that after we die another life is waiting for us?”I told him that I was absolutely convinced. I said we had the promises of the Bible, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the deepest instincts of countless people throughout history. I said I had no doubts about it whatsoever.“But what about scientific proof?” he wanted to know. I said, “Let me tell you something about the greatest scientist our nation ever produced: Thomas A. Edison. I knew his widow, and one day when I was in her home I said to her, ‘Tell me about your husband. What sort of mind did he really have?’“She said, ‘Exactitude was the mark of my husband’s mind. He was not sentimental. He had to know something for sure before he would say it or record it. It had to be proven.’ Then she told me that when her husband was dying, he could barely speak. His doctor, who was also a family friend, noticed that the great inventor was trying to say something. He leaned close and heard Edison whisper, ‘It’s very beautiful over there.’ Those were his last words.”I said to the industrialist, “Edison would not lie. He would not fabricate anything. He would report only what he saw. Is that scientific proof enough for you?”“Yes,” he said. “I think he glimpsed the land where my wife is waiting for me.”I think so, too.**( https://www.guideposts.org/faith-and-prayer/daily-devotions/devotions-for-men/thomas-edisons-glimpse-of-heaven )
If "Healthcare is a Right" then why is there a penalty or a fine ?
If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee called the individual shared responsibility payment. (The fee is sometimes called the "penalty," "fine," or "individual mandate.")Percentage of income2.5% of household incomeMaximum: Total yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze plan sold through the MarketplacePer person$695 per adult$347.50 per child under 18Maximum: $2,085If one can't afford healthcare how is one going to pay the fine ? So "healthcare is not a right" as the Left claims it is.
Trump assumed the Presidency on the back of innumerable claims of what he would do, when he would do it. Not least of which was that people would get "tired of winning".Trump's legislative agenda has involved neither setting tone, nor policy detail and letting the same Republicans he railed against during the campaign set their own agenda and write their own laws with little of his involvement, culminating in a thus far spectacular failure of a healthcare bill; which is wildly unpopularHe has reversed on several key positions, and has ceased significantly pushing on others: seeming to simply be driven by achieving a "victory" where a victory is not doing what he said, but doing anything of note, which is odd considering he billed himself as the ultimate dealmaker.He is taking credit for the economy left to him by Obama and remains unchanged due to no substantive economic policy or law changes; and has shirked responsibility when things go wrong, in military actions, legislative agenda, government and now absolved himself of responsibility of blame for any collapse to the US healthcare system under his watch.So, given that he's had 6 months, for which he has nothing substantial to show other than a supreme court nominee, and a half implemented executive order that runs out in a few months. He's emboldening US enemies, and appears to be reducing the willingness of European allies to work with the U.S. On top of this; many of his actions have been naive or even stupid; including actions that any one could tell would end up undermining his own position such as the firing of James Comey.So the question is:When will the U.S. "start winning" as boasted by Trump during the campaign?