Those things can not be applied to law as a religious maxim, or else it is theocracy.
However, those things are not religious in themselves and can be applied in other ways.
You should learn what communism actually is, instead of repeating what your told to think.
What would you imagine a communist would say is the difference between personal and private property, and the of the rights to "seize" either one?
It tells me you believe that god is evil, and you support a evil god.
People have used shells(and sticks) before, so one could also say that money comes from the sea as well:
Communism is the freest "market" there is. Most supporters understand it to be a gift economy Which should allow for greater quality of life to be had once it reaches a large scale through making private interests also public interests and vice versa.
The so called "free market" results in socialized losses and private gains.
Your seriously arguing that taxes create classes? How fucking delusional are you?
Everyone Having to give something to a entity under certain conditions is the singular cause of there being disparity in the relationship to the means of production, you'll have tough luck proving that one. |
Business and government are one of a kind, and can not be separated.
The same goes for the teacher, and distraction is the right word.
Yes they are, they following the teachings of Jesus Christ and share in some central doctrines.
They are christian sects, are you seriously going to argue that only one sect of Christianity is actually the true "Christians"? Maybe it's mormans, or perhaps orthodox, maybe one of the early Indian churches...
you can buy what leads to love, love isn't magic, something causes it, and what ever causes it can likely be bought somewhere down the line.
Communists support not only socialism, but the working class. The state is the vehicle of class war, you mistake my support of one side for support of government, and fail to realize how your own support of the other side also supports government, although a much more entrenched and permanent one.
I'm sure I read actualizable demand somewhere, although I may of been summing up an idea, irregardless its similar to or the same as effectual demand, as the phrase itself implies.
Its not simpler to hit enter than it is to go on a 4 month journey?
If you measure significance by time for example, then the thing which lets you message someone half way across the world in a second is much more significant than the mountain that would of otherwise made you deliver it 3 months later. The mountain doesn't even enter into the equation anymore, its no longer an obstacle, no longer significant to the question of communication.
As for those things you mentioned, technology is not there yet, but it will be.
If a teacher is distracted by another's student's religious expression which does no harm to anyone else, that is probably the teacher's problem and she/he should find another job or be given consoling to help with those issues.
Your point? sure if a guy wants to hook up two girls and they don't mind him watching why not.
Because they are not watching or fantasying about rape, but sex.
Unlike the pedophile porn watcher, they are watching and fantasying about rape.
child porn is really a misnomer.
Is there adds along side the video, or marketing information being gathered?
if so then merely viewing it can be contributing to harm.
Although I do agree that if you happen across it that it isn't something that should be punished.
If they are exhibitionists, would denying them the ability to be such reduce their activities? if the point is to be exhibitionist, then why do the act?
If you make it legal then specialized sites will spring up which allows for secure uploads and so on, and which can't be traced. You would allow security to be provided as a service to a wider number of potential producers, decreasing a barrier to entry.
If part of the driving force to production is sharing with the community, then disabling the ability to share diminishes production.
I also see no reason why we would have to decriminalize something to also treat it.
Perhaps they go out to watch it in person, or to set up such a situation for women they know.
YEa, ETHNOCENTRISM!, fuck those native Americans and their traditions, and every other non-white, non-male, non-property owning fuck eh?
Marriage is first and foremost a institution of PROPERTY, it is part of property law and has always been, second it shouldn't be distorted into being a bigoted, racist, homophobia shit because some arguments that were made against interracial marriage are actually still being applied to other discriminated groups. How about you come up with something original?
Its really not, and again, this "new" argument fails to my previous argument just the same.
no, by that logic people find hook ups. Unless their watching recordings of rape.
Yep, with replicators each new one sold creates new competitors. capitalism can't survive with such technology, yet such technology is demanded by consumers since well, they're awesome.
you can get a rep-rap for like 800$s
It allows them to build up to kidnapping, and actually stokes their desire for the action itself.
Market restrictions on distribution can affect production in different ways, through restricting access of child porn, production is limited through creating higher barriers of entry which means its less profitable as a business
and there will be less of it.
Happiness comes from something, and money get get something.
A gun is always in use, lock it up and it is actually less usable for self-defense and so on. Such a law wouldn't stop someone like lanza from simply opening the gun safe, and so on which makes it unreasonable because it's a law which sounds nice, but doesn't actually add any safety.
Not really, if you look at the various conventions that were formed and the sects that split off, main steam Christians which follow the cannon are just following the winners of various internal disputes which all question the validity of the cannon. There are many Christians that do not believe in the cannon.
It is just as trustworthy of a source as many non-cannon texts.
Not really, if you look at the various conventions that were formed and the sects that split off, main steam Christians which follow the cannon are just following the winners of various internal disputes which all question the validity of the cannon. There are many Christians that do not believe in the cannon.
I would argue that has more to do with their anti-west stance then it has to do with their religion.
They have found in islam something the imperials didn't take.
Freedom of religion is also different then freedom to force someone out of religion, some may very much want to wear it.
We already have laws against abuse and so on.
You don't realize that "sharia Law" isn't neccassirly "death to women without hibjab" ? but is actually more of a family court system then anything.
I have always found the argument that such things are "distracting" to be without merit, there simply has to be more than what might or might not be another person's personal preferences who might happen to be annoyed by something or another while they are in a position of athorithy to make a law, if a teacher or other students are distracted by another student doing anything, should that anything be banned? perhaps they can't focus on school because they are distracted that their sister at home is moving away for college and they won't hang out, should that be banned? Perhaps the teacher is distracted by black or gay students being in his class room, perhaps they should be segregated just in case the teacher is a racist?
Only when they are matting on a bed of mushrooms flying to an underground city buried deep within the hills of candy.
Perhaps but I hope then you admit that your orginal argument was also provided for incorrectly, Misogynists can also be women.
Llort believes grammar to be the troll of language, as such he doesn't much care to pay it's tolls.
Also adds to the non-sensical sensation eh?
to my knowledge it doesn't include the idea of two parties synthesizing into a new party, which carries within it the seed of it's opposite that grows as it grows, eventually overcoming it, forming a new synthesis. It is to my knowledge the idea that a system seeks balance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
welcome to the interwebz
Apollo and Dionysus are my homeboys, and perhaps this site has had too much and too little of Apollo and not enough of his complementary opposite.
I find the concept of yin-yang to correlate well to the concept of dialectics, although it seems a more static concept without such a level of growth and overcoming, focusing more on balance than new thesis through synthesis, hence I don't like it as well.
I figured since intelligence won't drive the dumb away, maybe crazy will.
I have yet to be convinced but am open to hear a original argument if one exists but due to the properties of religion it is impossible to provide a rational argument that could convince me.
That said there are "religions" I follow, but to refer to them as such in this context would be sophistry at best.
Also, if you could address my previous point.
But when a small class of people control the means of your subsistence, production and general well being the same as the majority of other people all your interactions with them are voluntary guys!
yea, lets make everything voluntary! It'll be great, all power to the bosses!
did I even lift?
