- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
NO. Simple as that. Their.........just not normal. I hate sugar coating things to people. If a 10 year old kid is dying from a rare disease that scientist barely care about, I'm gonna tell the kid that he's gong to die. Yeah it's harsh, but sugar coating causes people to believe in lies.
If we were back in 2001 (My Birth Year), digital privacy would have just caught cancer. In 2010, digital privacy is on chemotherapy due to celebrities being hacked and China hacking everyone on earth. Once 2013 hit, digital privacy lost a battle with cancer. Snowden exposed the secrets of the NSA. China makes the NSA look like me (when it comes to hacking)
We appear to be expanding, our density is under the tipping point for a crunch.
You're talking about the actual state of events. The widely accepted truth, to be more precise, within the concept of "cosmology" based on the modified Einstein's equation.
I was referring to the situation after the hypothetical "Big Bang". It's supposed to have appeared out of a singularity. And according to "General relativity", such an object would be a collapsor, and would have no chance of expanding beyond its event horizon.
Ok, this can be sort of countered by saying that masses hadn't yet formed at that time. However, according to the Big Bang BS, massed formed shortly after the explosion - within 1 year. If we take the supposed "known mass" of the universe, than it's gravitational radius would be a lot more than 1 light year (about 30 light years).
R = 2GM/c
However, the argument about "non-formed masses" is actually irrelevant. Einstein's equation contains the matter energy - momentum tensor on the right side, and that is supposed to be the source of gravity.
So, even if the masses "had not formed" yet, the energy was there and it had singular density.
I'm not anti religious, I'm live and let live, I have no problem with the religions. I just don't see the use of the debates centered around them, for reasons I explained.
However are you saying that you have an idea on better, new, or rehashed religious debates? If so, I'd love to argue on them, if you created them.
I do not watch media that is politically biased, and not all media is "liberal." I have given you facts from history that existed before 24 hour news cycles (and after) and you've ignored them all. Many people in "the world" did not believe Hussein had WMDs. That's why Americans did not like the dissent from the people who questioned the claim. Remember the stupidity of "freedom fries?"
There is no evidence from credible sources that refute the scientific facts behind global warming.
I'm not wasting your time with "liberal" rhetoric. I do not being to a party not do I take a side. I have what's called an "education," and I understand facts. I have presented you with facts. Can you refute them without resorting to partisan taking points? I do not care about your left/right false dichotomy. Can you refute the facts I've presented? I doubt it.
Western post-industrial society has broadly defined privacy as "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people," and "the state of being free from public attention." Or, in even more elegant terms: "the right to be let alone" as Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote in 1890.
Yet, we are seeing the capabilities of digital technology make this definition increasingly unrealistic to achieve in reality. The Internet is permeating ever more aspects of daily life. Physical and virtual realities are merging together and we are seeing the characteristics of the virtual, including pervasive surveillance, being applied to the physical. To escape the light is becoming impossible. With cameras everywhere from mobile phones to nanosat mesh networks, sensors proliferating, chattering machine to machine networks and increasingly powerful processing analyzing it all, we seem to be entering into a new era, one where every object, person and action is quantifiable and trackable, perhaps even predictable. With all of it on an exponential curve up in capability and down in size and price. We are increasingly living on Quantified Earth. Privacy as we have known appears dead. Facing its death, we must ask: should we fight to hold on to the privacy we knew, or plunge headlong into radical transparency?
Could we even return to the post-industrial definition, or must we begin to look for a "post-Internet" definition?
I argue that the wave of technological change is making the choice for us, that we are heading with overwhelming momentum toward radical transparency. I contend that trying to hang on to past definitions of privacy in its minutia risks diverting us away from focusing on future power dynamics, core rights and freedoms.
Lastly I ask is it time to let go of the "right to be let alone" and start thinking more along the lines of "the rights to be expressive and tolerated?"
Initially, the idea of massive amounts of your data - for example your purchase or chat histories - aggregated by marketers and sometimes handed over to the government is a scary, Orwellian thought. But digital spaces and transactions are not entries in a private journal. Digital activities are actions in a public forum. Furthermore, individuals have stood to gain a lot from this transparency. From targeted ads and discounts to customized medical advice and free communication tools - we have traded a certain level of traditional privacy for convenience, and it is now economically unfeasible for most to opt out of this network - to forego daily reliance on Google, CVS rewards, or Priceline.com deals. Digital privacy is dead. Accountability measures such as Google Transparency reports or cookie tracking alerts promoting consumer awareness and civil rights can help guide this new framework for digital transparency.
I am an atheist who thinks the "anti-religion" stance (blanket condemnation of religion in general) is naive and that my fellow atheists should focus on improving how it's practiced, rather than thinking that they don't practice any form of religion at all.
I do not feel that the relgion debate can be rehashed, in a new way that is.
I've said this several times, and I'm saying it once more for the relevancy of this debate. Nothing new is ever said, no new information has been found, and no one's mind is ever changed. It's the equivalent of asking a yes or no question of fact. The answer will always be the same if you're not trying to fool anyone.
For example "Do you believe in God" "Is the sky blue" There's only one way people are going to answer these questions, and not much can be said after that, nothing new or insightful anyway.
Exactly. Most history, the vast majority of history, as long as it's done by actual historians, is legitimately researched and often peer-reviewed. It's like the difference between science and pseudoscience. The aquatic ape hypothesis is not real science, but gravity is real. I love history, and I love doing the research, but that's why I'm making a living of it.
I love doughnuts, I would go so far as to buy and eat an entire dozen. The worst thing I could imagine actually doing to get doughnuts, since I love them, but am still pretty rational, is steal them if I was almost 100% sure I wouldn't get caught, and was also pretty sure no one would miss them.
As an example I'd often take a warm fresh one out of the batch when I'd make them at Dunkin' Doughnuts, since it's only one out of hundreds, and it could have potentially been one that just happened to fall on the floor, as some have been know to do.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement