- 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
Your opinion is stupid and relies on the emotional side of your brain overpowering the side which deals with reason and logic.
On the contrary, your attempts to illicit an emotional response by continuously trying to insult not just my belief but me, shows your own emotional response through childish antics. To put it bluntly, I simply don't care what you think of me, if you don't believe in God then that is your prerogative, it has no bearing on anyone else but you.
There are literally thousands of homes in areas that are vacant or run down. If we legalized weed and taxed it, that money could easily cover enough to fix up the houses, get the poor and homeless in them and help them become self-sufficient, either by helping them to get jobs or by getting them the medical/mental health help they need. We would still have money left over to put into schools and adult education.
It's insanely funny. For a man people praise as one who isn't afraid to tell it like it is, he certainly can't when he's caught in a lie then doubles down on it. It could have been a mistake that, if admitted, would have just been one of those things. That he has tried to push forward with it and continue on? Hysterical.
I can't say for sure. I doubt a capitalistic society can survive mass unemployment brought on by artificial intelligence and automation. We are already seeing some businesses heading for that in the food services, self check out, manufacturing jobs, etc. As technology improves there will be fewer and fewer jobs for white collar citizens and some to most blue collar. It may sound fatalist but that's what a concern is. So as for what will replace it? I truly don't know. Thoughts?
Bizarrely, it appears you are blaming me for capitalism
Bizarrely you think I'm blaming you for capitalism. I can only imagine that you don't just work to survive, I imagine you have several electronics and devices for play and leisure as well. Unless of course I'm wrong and you use the computer just to survive?
Money is an incentive only for idiots
So you work for free?
Let me put this another way, a scientist working to create a better battery needs the funds he gets to be able to explore different avenues and test products. You can value life all you want but the simple fact is, money gets your foot in the door to put ideas into action. It seems like you just want to focus on large corporations screwing the economy and the future of our planet just to get more money in their pockets, and yes, that absolutely does happen. But the other side is companies that provide incentive and reward for researchers and scientists to come up with better solution, to think outside the box. So long as they do and so long as it provides a better, cleaner future, who gives a shit what the reward is? One can still be interested in genuine study when there's a boost involved.
We already have the technology to provide free and sustainable energy to the entire planet.
Yes but we can do better.
What is holding us back is the money invested in fossil fuels and the profitability of expendable sources of energy.
That's one of the things holding us back. We are limited by the technology of our time but with research and tenacity we can find better and more efficient solutions.
So you believe that money is necessary to create an incentive?
Only partially. Too often that incentive can be warped to do exactly what I said earlier, but it can also be incentive to study an area that has yet been either undiscovered or only partially studied. Until not too long ago there wasn't much of a call to search for more green energy solutions and energy storage, now with people putting money in the right direction, the cost of solar panels, tax breaks and benefits for having them (which encourages average consumers to justify the up front cost for installation or updates), and the study of it, has paved the way for corporations to spend the time and money to find more efficient means of production and efficiency.
So do you now see why money is not necessary for science and technology
I disagree, but perhaps we are seeing two different sides to it. It seems as if you are seeing a side where money is used to dominate science, which isn't wrong, I see it as a way to encourage and promote discovery with science, which also isn't wrong.
As our capacity to create abundance with science and technology increases, so too does our capacity to destroy everything because humanity allowed a bunch of rich ass holes to make decisions for their own gain instead of people who knew what the fuck they were doing or cared about the planet or anything on it other than themselves. Will the day come when decisions about how we use the earth's resources are based on reason and science or will we continue to let a bunch of capitalists give science a measly allowance while they waste everything for profit?
This is very true and I would not argue against it. One of the quote's I've believed in is "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die", apparently Jean-Paul Sartre said it but I heard it from Linkin Park a while back. Now we have rich people who in a sense are waging war against our very planet by funding the denial of science.
One has to have money to have technology. To further advance science you need technology. You need scientists or a some form of education to understand or/and experiment with said technology, which also isn't free. One can stand outside and look at the stars all they want but the unfortunate fact is, without money you can't see beyond your own ability. This is why most Scientists work to gain funding for their projects.
That is certainly an interesting application, I can't imagine it would go through. According to the article I was reading:
"In order for a trademark to be registered for a brand of clothing, the trademark must be used in a trademark fashion. In other words, it has to be used on tagging or labeling for the products. In this case, just putting the word 'the' on the front of a hat or on the front of a shirt is not sufficient trademark use."
Such a commonly used word shouldn't be trademarked though.