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?
If the dearest princess of mistakeness would please forgiveth the forced intrussion It simply must be said that agnosticism is actually a position on the knowability of something, where as atheism/theism is a position on belief. Most agnostics are atheists, since they do not believe in what they believe can not be known.
ducks are nice, and they make a nice moo noise.
I'm guessing they try to do it more through tax breaks than anything.
Undoubtedly this shall be an epic fortitude of point gathering and frolicking, tis is my every intention to maintain this thread as actively active and repetitively fresh.
He's a questionably gay Russian probably on speed all the time that can sing for 24 hours straight a very repetitive song and who hasn't been seen since the sixties when he flew away on a dinosaur and invented breast implants while living under the sea in the lost city of Atlantis.
See, even gay men love titties, or some of them any ways, ta tas are awesome.
They find it hard to argue against gay marriage, and look where they are at.
He's famous in the same way Achilles is, or superman, not famous as in cuthulu or the FSM.
Uncle cuthulu and cousin unicron had a daughter named DEMON, DEMON throw up the world after an excessive amount of partying with Dionysus's special's "200 proof", she went back to having an orgy with her brothers and pets, we have yet to see her since.
Most true, but I rather enjoy many essay extracts.
I figured I'll start trolling the trolls and people that can't argue. It'll suffice as retaliation for facepalms.
no you don't, or else you wouldn't be christian.
Or you would be every religion.
Try it, rationally show why you are a christian, and i'll rationally show why you should also be a hindu, or a morman, or a bigfootarian, or a worshiper of ra.
"example of a famous, ancient, high profile, widely accepted, gay marriage."
I see what you did there, ancient and famous don't go together, and so on.
Its also irrelevant, since you've admitted it yourself, marriage has always been about property not the gender of those involved in it.
no I am not, because I apply the same standard of rationality and evidence to my religious beliefs as I do to others.
Also your rather assumptious.
Can I haz friend?
From thee other side I see, post modernizt generator tricked me? blashpemy! I saw it first I swear, let ye be square!
Hexs and vexes be cast on thee, the matrix be calling me to sleep! Good night fair lady good night fair laid, o my god there goes your head, 17 centry where be fance, I think it might be wrong but could be so right, revolution be soon or later, already gone? Grab the leftovers, yum yum in my tum, I rather did like your mum, rather odd her and her bum, but I suppose its all well and done.
drauging it along we find it has been dragged, truism be true and your face is ugly and none of those things are unlike thee others unless your doctor suze who had 2 mothers,or maybe it was 5 girlfriends who knows the difference? If you like nagging it's the same inference, doctor suze went crazy with those crooks and cooks and found beauty in absurdity, who would of knew?
Its not that he is making an argument that because x is a subset of y and all x are z thus all y are also z, but instead that x is a subset of y, y are z, thus all x are and here is a specific reason on why x is that way.
you do realize that education != indoctrination, which school is in many ways a place of indoctrination it is also despite that a place of education as well. It isn't indoctrination when your available knowledge and teachings are based simply on the facts, as is often the case in public schools when it comes to marriage. other subjects less so, but we learn about other cultures and people, and the rich history which makes "traditional marriage" very nontraditional indeed. Marriage has never been an institution inherently between two opposite genders, but has always been more abstract then that.
This doesn't happen after sex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
indeed, yo moma decided to skate board, when she tried to ollie the earth jumped.
I hearby dubed thee scrutom .
Penguins love scrutoms.
Or is it Pneses, jihnnoes, ah perhaps its just simply fish eggs.
Did you have your pancakes today?
Only twice, makes a wonderful cream for your mother's shampoo.
Its bullshit that the study showed that when liberals were distracted and they gave answers more similar to conservatives, suggesting that liberals put more thought into their answers and changed their initial replies after consideration and that multiple studies also show this? Its called reading the link, and Google, if you want to choose to be ignorant and not present any type of argument, or hint of one, then what would a penguin do?
And what occurs when elephants die along the ride on tarus 9 which flys to the sky, do they may a good ole pie?
The same idea works the other way around when women rape men, it is like wise about power, just because he gave a specific example, doesn't mean that he believes his example to be exclusive.
cool story bro, how many apples can a goat suck while a walrus rides a grasshopper along a moving train on it's way to paris?
"irrelvant to debate"
Seriously, you can do better than a strawman and an ad hominin wrapped up together.
that or you can at least troll better.
The people suppressing history, the people suppressing knowledge of the out group, the people that claim that people that do things differently then them are always wrong, and so on and so forth, in short the " traditional" marriage advocates.
no its not, rape is predominately about control and hence why most often it is women who are raped, because our society is structured such that the female gender is seen as inferior in many ways. Social and sexual rejection is a rejection of a man's maleness to many rapists.
As for female rapists, its a similar story for them. An attractive women is one that has lots "sex", and some are not above "proving" their attraction.
Really? Thats what you call "homophobia", your not gay are you?
Another study showing that left leaning people use more of their brains.
A person has power when they can do something, not only when they can be violent.
Are you seriously experiencing that much cognitive dissonance whenever people even vaguely hint at private property being bad in some way?
? You do realize that its the other way around, so called "traditional marriage" is the indoctrinated version, considering the long history of marriage and its various forms through history and geography.
Are you familiar with human trafficking, or the general institution of patriarchy?
Rape isn't sex through, physically the body responds differently to it as does the mind, they consist of different processes.
Thus Rape isn't forced "sex", there is no sex in rape.
Sex is inherently a mutual/ at least semi-consenting thing as well, deny that and no amount of forcing will make it sex.
no its not, because that statement of yours has no basis in psychology or the mechanisms of belief.
Compartmentalization is a readily apparent fact with most theists, they can easily refute religious beliefs which are not their own but can not apply the same methods to their own. They can not apply the same standard to their own beliefs, the standard of rationality, as such they are idiots when it comes to their religion. They are literally mentally deficient, as is proved by the observable,testable, compartmentalization so many display.
no its not, objectively they are idiots when it comes to their religion, or else they wouldn't be religious.
Its called compartmentalization, they are incapable of applying rational thought when it comes to their religion.
Like what points exactly, that a flat tax is in any measure a good thing, well addressed. What else would you like to see?
... if Christians are being ill-treated, have no doubt that atheists are as well and often have it worse.
If Christians face persecution for their faith, it is often due to an alternative religion having state power, and they tend to view atheism as worse than other religions.
actually, they often do, because elegant communication requires a common framework of thought which is often lacking when they try to communicate.
there is nothing elegant about simply stating "bull shit".
Also, can you address my points, or are you stumped?
"traditional marriage" isn't very old, or very traditional.
Also your conflating different institutions with the same name, how hard is it to know that legal marriage, social marriage, and religious marriage are all really different things and shouldn't be confused.
The question provides the answer, the force doesn't stop, and the object doesn't move.
You assuming the two interact, they don't need to. Consider dark matter.
You can make a better argument then that.
How about you address my argument, if you are speaking of a flat sale's tax, its regressive, if you are speaking of even a progressive "income tax", it's often still regressive if you take a broader definition of income to include capital gains.
Progressive income taxation allows for lower taxes on the great majority of people, which means that more consumables are bought, which means more turnover, more production, and more jobs.
I can continue, but if all you have is one liners or a couple sentences, you have nothing.
A flat tax is a regressive tax, will hurt aggregate demand, and thus lower production and the rate of money transfer, increasing the liklyhood of a credit crunch and so on and so forth, its simply is a terrible idea.
Cannabis can be taxed, but not all of it, it grows anywhere easily, its more likly people will just grow their own making it difficult to tax, but there should still be plenty of commercial cannabis which can be taxed. Freeing up the prisons by legalizing cannabis would do more good than the taxes from it through.
and whats your point?
We still have a two party system, which is more of an aggregate of various view points which would rather vote against the other aggregate then support their own views.
So long as it is a republic, government is out of the people's hands.
We were always here, we can not rely on "vigilance" but there must be institutional mechanisms in place, a republic was more of a practical necessity for large nations due to information technology not being developed. It is now, and a republic, with all of it's institutional affront's to the people's will and their rights, is simply old.
