That's not the analogy. Leaving the house and having sex are the equivalents. Both are choices made that can have potential problems. When leaving the house, and equally when having protected sex, the risk aspect is greatly reduced to a point where it shouldn't have a bearing on the decision to act.
So, the argument of not having protected sex if you can't afford an abortion is equivalent to saying don't leave the house if you can't afford any risks that may equally occur from that decision, such as being hit by a car.
Engaging in protected sex and leaving the house are both choices that can have negative consequences. Saying you should spend your life avoiding possibilities because of potential unlikely negatives is ridiculous.
"They still took the risk of pregnancy KNOWING that they may not be able to hold the burden. Why should we feel sorry for these people?"
Again I ask, are you advocating that finances should be a criteria in people having sex? Is that seriously what you're saying? Because to me, it looks like your argument is "don't have sex if you're poor."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/
The poll found 50% not wanting government run healthcare, and 47% wanting it. The poll itself has a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points.
I actually agree with almost all of what you said, apart from one or two tiny bits.
"Democracy incorporates Capitalism as the economic goal..."
I think a lot of the more successful democracies actually incorporate a good mix of capitalism and socialism. I don't think either as complete theories could ever be implemented successfully, however implemented together they seem to work very well. It's just such a shame that when implemented in its pure form, capitalism is great for those embracing it, but terrible for those who are the victims of it (e.g. Africa).
"keeping voters from taking away individual rights (unfortunately, politicians suck at reading the Constitution)."
Another unfortunate property of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which often leads to individual rights being taken away by the voting majority (as evident with proposition 8). Do you happen to think that that is an unfortunate property of democracy itself, or simply bad implementation? Maybe it's a symptom of what I call "collective morals," where as a group people will often agree that, just as a crude example, something needs to be done about healthcare, however when it actually comes to the time when they may have to dip their hands in their pockets, suddenly the collective morality of society as a whole doesn't actually fulfil its promise when we are given the choice as individuals. What do you think?
It seems such a shame that all of the experiments into communism so far have failed (though, they are always actually dictatorships disguised as communism from the very start). If communism could be applied in a way that stayed true to its original ideals, what would you think of communism then? (ie. What are your thoughts on communist theory rather than the failed implementations?)
Congratulations on the most stupid Reductio ad absurdum argument ever made. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Just so we're clear, I'm not arguing that you are bigoted and I'm not. My argument is that everyone is bigoted about some things. What annoys me is when people (as you're doing) apply their own individual bias to a situation to excuse their views from having the property that they try to attach to others views because of that bias. I'm a bigot, you're a bigot. We all are about certain things. So...
"No, you're wrong. I never said that every liberal was a bigot. Or that every liberal attacks white people. A lot of them yes, but not all of them."
There's no difference between saying all or most, because both statements are clearly ludicrous, based on your individual bias, and bigoted. Have you met or spoken to most liberals? No. Therefore you are extending your individual bias beyond the realms of its actual limitation. You tar people with the same brush because they have differing views to you, and that is the very definition of bigotry. Do you understand? Does that make sense?
"There is a difference between criticism and straight up mocking and making fun of something."
Satire does not make bigotry. Bigotry in its nature must be both irrational and animus. I've personally seen you attack atheistic morals with both irrationality and ill feeling. I'm bigoted about your religion, just as you are bigoted about the lack of mine.
"That's not true, Thypyg is kind of a hybrid and leans to the left on some issues but I don't "attack" him. Same for anyone else, even liberals. Now I'm not perfect, sometimes I can be a jerk. But I have gotten better at not attacking people."
I have noticed you getting better at not attacking people. But the statement before that, about Pyg, is utterly irrelevant. You cannot pick one individual relationship that you have with someone and attempt to show that it proves you're not bigoted. In fact, this whole debate is an attack on liberals. You are literally doing the very thing you're accusing liberals of doing, which, quite frankly, is ridiculously hypocritical. But I suppose you'll try to find some way or worming out of it rather than just accepting it.
"please note that debating and attacking are not the same thing"
And attacks disguised as debates (such as your initial argument in this debate) are not the same thing either.
"Your right you don't have to have respect."
Exactly. I'm pretty sure you disagree with me on this point, so please explain why anyone's beliefs deserve any respect without earning it? Again, as I said, you're utterly entitled to have them. But claiming that they deserve any sort of respect is to attempt to stifle any critique or debate about those beliefs.
"You even have the right to be a bigot."
Yes we do.
"And you very often take advantage of those rights."
As do you, and as you did when you made your first argument on this debate.
"I never said that was the reason."
You don't have to say. It's clearly the reason. You're a conservative, and you've picked an entire group (liberals) to brand with the same label based on your opinions. That, by your very definition, is bigoted. I can't believe that you can't see the irony in this.
"Maybe the people that constantly attack white people"
Bigoted opinion number 1.
"Christianity, [religion it's self],"
I attack Christianity (and other religions) no more than you attack Atheists. I've seen plenty of debates where you've given inaccurate, biased and bigoted opinions of Atheist views. Get off your high horse.
"anyone who leans toward the right."
And in your case, anyone who leans to the left.
"Yeah, who does that sound like."
Like I said... it sounds a lot like you.
"Atheists also come to mind. Who are the ones and making fun of anyone who disagrees, comparing our god to Santa Clause and the easter bunny not having any respect for the beliefs of others. How arrogant could you be!"
Why do you presume that your beliefs deserve respect? You're certainly entitled to have them, but I absolutely do not have to respect them. They're based on absolutely no evidence, outdated, and provide a framework for people to express homosexual and misogynistic views whilst cowering behind their "religious freedoms." I'm sorry, but nothing in this world should be instantly granted respect; respect should be earned.
Anyway, as I said, all of the things you pointed out as being bigoted are things you yourself do. But, as always, you'll apply your own individual bias and believe (rather arrogantly) that when you do the exact same things you're currently speaking out against it isn't the same as when some "liberal" does it.
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion... Who does this sound like?"
You. Calling liberals bigots because they have opinions that differ to yours is pretty bigoted, by your own definition.
"This has nothing to do with poor or rich people."
Unfortunately it does, because what is proposed is financial help for the poor towards the cost of an abortion; being rich or poor has everything to do with the argument. However, this is slightly different to what I am opposing, which is Joe's view that "People who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sexual intercourse."
Clearly, this is advocating a criteria on those who should be allowed to engage in sex, which is both ridiculous and naive. Paying for the abortions of those who cannot afford them when they are patently required isn't going to encourage people to have sex. I doubt the cost of an abortion would ever be something that is going through someone's mind when they decide to engage in sex.
The thing you have to decide is: do you just ignore the problem, or try to combat it? Allowing this regression of poor kids born to poor families, not to mention the fact that these kids are most likely unwanted, unplanned, and unlikely to be born with the proper financial planning which should always be a factor when having or planning to have a child, means that, in the long run, this child will mostly likely have a poor quality of upbringing and be more of a financial burden then initially paying for the abortion.
Sex happens, and you can't stop it. What you can do, however, is make a decision about how you best combat the rising gap between the poor and the rich in America, and how your tax dollars are best spent. Do you want 18 years of supporting a child through welfare (and most likely far more than 18 years), or do you want a small one-time financial burden, not to mention stopping an unwanted child who will most likely have a poor quality of life being bought into the world?
Just as I thought, avoid the point.
Why do you hate poor people so much Joe? Are you seriously saying that your solution to this is that if you're poor, you can't have sex, because there is a small chance that contraception may fail? Just so we're clear, is that actually what you're suggesting? That there should be a minimum criteria that you must meet to engage in something that humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years?
"We shouldn't be spending our tax money frivolously."
Opinion.
"We should spend it on useful things like national defense instead of abortions for women to stupid to realize that if they can't afford an abortion they should abstain from sexual intercourse and opt for a facial instead."
Think about the amount you'd pay in taxes for a single abortion compared to a lifetime of taxation to support an unwanted child born to a poor family. Incidentally (back to your silly idea that people should only be taxed for things they support) I'd rather have my taxes spent on an abortion then funding a military any day.
"I can't believe that you are actually abdicating telling women to go out and have sex..."
I'm not. I just happen to have some grasp on the real world, unlike yourself, who seems to think that women only have sex because they know they can have an abortion afterwards, which is ridiculously idiotic thinking.
"...and if they get pregnant that we will pay for her to have an abortion."
Try to understand the difference between the fantasy world you live in and the real world. People do have sex. Women do get pregnant. Sometimes, those women can't afford a child or are not in a position to properly care for a child. I would rather fund an abortion then allow an unwanted child which will either not be properly cared for or will be born to a family to poor to provide for it to be bought into world, which ultimately, statistics show you'll end up paying far more for in the long run.
What we're talking about here is funding abortions for the poor. Statistically, a child born to a poor family will itself end up being poor, which means you'll end up paying for support taxes such as welfare.
"What bone headed way of thinking is that?"
It's a way of thinking grounded in reality, not in your pie in the sky fantasy land where as soon as people think they can have a free abortion they're going to go out and start fucking anyone who comes along.
And thus you prove the absurdity of your argument.
I bet there are lots of things that you support that lots of other people don't, and thus things you feel important, such as border control and national defence, could end up not having enough funding to be able to operate. This is why you don't get a choice in exactly which specific initiatives that your taxes go towards.
If we all chose to only fund those initiatives which we ourselves support, it would spell the end of democracy.
I think that point is; should people against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan be forced to pay for that? Should people who don't have kids be forced to pay for the schools that are giving your kids an education? Should people without cars be forced to pay for roads? Should people with cars be forced to pay for mass transport like trains and buses? Should people completely against the idea of war fund the military at all? Should people who believe in open borders fund border control policies? Should people opposed to the whole idea of the penal system be forced to put a single cent into funding it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
"Nationalized health care is not for the benefit of the U.S."
That's opinion, and seeing as America is only 36th in the developed world for healthcare (behind a load of countries with nationalised healthcare, including the UK and Canada), it's clearly an uneducated opinion at that. Please explain how countries with nationalised healthcare are ahead of the US in the WHO rankings if nationalised healthcare can not be of benefit to a country?
"Stop trying to subvert this country with your socialist views. We didn't like the way the Brits ran their government before during and after the revolutionary war and we still haven't changed our minds. ;)"
Falling back on "blah blah communism/socialism" is admitting that you actually have no real arguments to make. Like Godwin's law, but less informed of political theory. Such a shame. And I don't like the way our government is run either, because it's run far too much like yours.
"I which [sic] the federal government did only those things spelled out in the constitution."
Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
You mean like imposing a tax to provide for the general welfare of the United States by ensuring that all citizens are provided with healthcare?
So your idea of a truly free society without the horrific burden of taxation would be one where people can only go within walking distance, or, alternatively, the millions of people in the US dependant on going further than within walking distance would have to depend solely on businesses operating horse and cart services along dust tracks? What you're proposing with a society ithout taxation is a return the middle ages. That sound great. Sign me up.
I agree that that would be a fair argument, had the poll not asked about the salaries and social status of those questioned, which it did. One thing I did notice was a slightly larger number of people who voted for Obama, but also noticed (as a counter-balance) a larger number of people describing themselves as having conservative views.
"Polls have very little importance to me, when any."
I know I may have used it as a source, and I admit it was mainly show-boating on my part, but I agree with that completely. When you understand how easy it is to pose a question to be answered in the way you want it to be answered, polls (and referendums, for that matter) lose any real significance.
On reflection, I retract the poll and the argument made with it.
"Well actually I can because my tax dollars went towards it, whoops. ;) Had my tax dollars not gone towards it I would have paid for the service, just like I'm doing now, whoops. ;)"
I was clearly referencing my challenge to spend a week not using any services that were provided for or by through taxation. Without taxation, there would be no roads to drive on to get to work, there would be no internet to work from home. And you wouldn't be paying for the service because the service only existed because of the pulling together of funds. No matter how much you may like to think otherwise, you could not individually pay for the all the things that make your life the way it is.
Your continued insistence that you could survive and build a society similar to the one we have without taxation is incredibly naive.
"Yeah..., I noticed. What cracks me up is that you took the time to contribute content to my debate which means that it was entertaining enough for you to participate lol"
I suppose I do find some strange entertainment value in shooting down your arguments every single time.
"Why would an Englishman care enough (one way or another) about U.S. politics to spend any time on it? It is all very interesting, no?"
The subject matter is interesting, and some of us are still interested in having an actual debate about the subject, because America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and therefore it's important that the example it sets is the right one. And, believe it or not, I believe everyone should be given certain rights, whether they're American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc, that's why the fact that this debate is occurring in America is irrelevant to me.
America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world still does things that defy belief. It annoys me that you try to help Africa with one hand, and implement policies that cripple it with the other. It annoys me that you attempt to fight terrorism, pulling us in for the ride and causing a terrorist attack in my city, whilst at the same time nearly every single terrorist organisation has been funded by the US. It annoys me that, even when your own country suffered a terrible natural disaster, no one cared because it happened to poor people (I'm talking about Katrina). And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it. That's why I get involved, and try to do my part (regardless of the fact that no one really cares on this site any more) to get involved in the debate and make my view heard.
And if you're wondering...
"Maybe he's thinking about moving to the U.S."
No, he's not. I don't want to live under your ideal of freedom and liberty to all (if you can afford it). Why the hell would I want to move to a country that doesn't give a crap about anyone else and continually tries to push its form of government down everyone's throat, even when they don't want it?
And you know what's really entertaining? The fact that every time we enter into an argument, you fall back on comedy rather than seeing through the actual debate. That just solidifies in my mind, with every single debate with have, that my views are right, moral, and justifiable. I can back mine up whilst you fall back into a corner and play the comedian card. At least have the balls to back up your views and see it through.
There was a time on this site where you actually used to fight your corner, but I suppose rather than modify your views in response to arguments that are obviously too compelling for you to be able to form arguments against, you'd rather just back down, forget about it, and continue to hold the views you do even though they've been tested time and time again and found to be lacking.
Pineapple had you absolutely pegged when she said: "Based on previous conversations, I am entirely convinced that you know nothing about this bill or the state of the country and the reasons we need it. Nor do I feel that you care to learn about it. Therefore, I don't accept your opinion as educated or valid." And it's a real shame.
Well, actually, you can't. You can't use the Internet as it was an innovation produced mostly by ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), both of which are agencies of the United States Department of Defense, and therefore publicly funded.
Whoops.
Follow the link I left (it's the one that says source at the end of the quote) and you'll find the exact report with that exact line in it.
"I am NOT enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury of a highway because it is more of a parkway during rush hour traffic."
Then stay at home and don't use it. After all, you don't agree with taxes. Maybe you should spend a week not using any services that are paid for through taxation? That would be fun.
"Nor am I enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that take more than an hour to respond to anything."
That because they're dealing with all the gun crime. ;-)
"I don't have to actually read the primary sources myself because the fact is that I don't want to be tax at a higher rate, period."
Did you not read the part about all insurance premiums going down?
"Anything less than that is highway robbery."
Talking about highways, how are you enjoying that socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury? Talking about robbery, how are you enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that keep you safe? :-)
Here's exactly how the poll was carried out. If you can find fault, do so (rather than just ignoring it because of who it is).
And again, here are the questions that were asked.
Please, I beg you, provide a meaningful rebuke to the poll's questions or methods. I did so with your source, so do me the pleasure of returning the favour.
I actually check my sources first.
“Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.”
You pay a tax to support a service. If tax needs to be increased or decreased to modify the service to better suit the needs of the population, what exactly is the problem with that? The amount of tax you pay changes often depending on the state of the country and reform to services provided. This is whining for the sake of whining. Anyway, let's go to the actual text to really see what's being said:
"MANNER OF NEGOTIATION- The Secretary shall negotiate such rates in a manner that results in payment rates that are not lower, in the aggregate, than rates under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and not higher, in the aggregate, than the average rates paid by other Qualified Health Benefits Plan offering entities for services and health care providers." [source]
So, you won't be forced to pay any more than the average going rate for healthcare, ever. That is written in to this bill.
“Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.”
There is no section 59. It starts at section 101. Incidentally, there is also no 159, 259, 359, or 459 to speak of. Great source you got there Joe.
“On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.”
This is absolute crap. Do you actually read the primary sources yourself or do you rely on poor journalism to give you incorrect facts about the sources?
Here is what the report actually says:
"CBO estimates that the combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. The average reductions would be larger in the markets for small group and individually purchased policies,
which are the focus of many of the legislation’s provisions. In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law. And in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO’s estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example. " [source]
That's bullshit, and you know it. You simply can't argue the irrefutable fact that the US was not set up as a Christian country. Here are some more sources, including an actual scan of the paper that the treaty was written on:
http://nobeliefs.com/document.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html (mid-way down the page).
"...but we also need to realize what this nation was founded on... GOD. One nation under God~!"
No it wasn't. Do you know what Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli is? It was a declaration of peace between The United States and the Tripoli of Barbary, signed in 1796 (only 20 years after the Declaration of Independence), which stated:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [source]
"This is ONLY for those who oppose homosexuality, homophobics, those who oppose homosexuality within their family."
I oppose homophobia, so I guess I'm in, right? If, as I beleive it is, that is actually a mistake on your part, then why even bother? What's the point of starting a debate, and only allowing people who agree with your view to post?
Anyway, I have absolutely no worry that a child of mine will be gay. Their sexuality will be absolutely none of my business. As I don't adhere to a religious foundation that teaches homosexuality to be wrong or immoral, I can find absolutely no reason to feel any differently about homosexuals than straight people. There's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and therefore I don't worry about my child being so.
"There was a movie in the footsteps of yeti or something of that sort, though i don't know the exact name! It argues that humans were first yetis and that they all were just parting from that place, and they lost hair due to heat and became men! Isn't that suckingly wierd?"
Bad film plots do not count as scientific theories.
"Firstly - Arranged marriages are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to FORCED MARRIAGES."
No they're not. An arranged marriage is essentially a third party selecting your future partner and a person who you have to spend your entire life with. If the third part is selecting, and the selection of that third party holds regardless of the wishes of those being engaged into marriage, that is the very definition of a forced marriage. I'm sure it would be great for yourself, being male; having a wife selected for you who can, as you believe a women's job should be, be great in the kitchen.
It's not so great for the wife though, being arranged without any choice, in to a loveless and forced marriage of convenience. Women are not commodities. Marriage should be a commitment between two people based on a foundation of love and trust.
Although I don't want to actually get involved in the debate as a whole, I did just have one point that I wanted to make.
"Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about."
It is actually now thought that "domesticated" cats are the product of natural selection in response to Human agriculture, rather than direct artificial selection for favourable characteristics. So in a way, the evolutionary path to domestication does differ between dogs and cats.
Firstly we must establish that justice is indeed mutable when concerning law within a democratic political system before we discuss measures of righteousness or solutions for dealing with a lack of such.
The majority of western justice systems include measures to amend the law through either the courts or government (in some cases, both). In fact, nearly every democratic country has measures for law addition or amendment by the government. Whilst democracy itself is purely a system of government rather than a statute for how justice is to be determined or whether it be by the elected government, the political theory behind democracy clearly includes the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Whilst not implicitly stated, it is implied within the very values of democracy that a democratic government should have the power to amend the justice system to better reflect the principle of all citizens being equal before the law.
So, we assume for the remainder of this argument that the justice system is intimately entangled with the principle of a democratic governance system, and therefore measures of a democracy's "righteousness" can theoretically be performed on the quality of the justice system. This measure, as laid out in the description for this debate, should be discretely measurable.
What is far harder to assert within the context of this debate is whether a measure of the righteousness of a democracy in regards to its justice system is even possible, and if so, whether this should affect the ability to amend the law. Scientific measurability is extremely difficult to perform on something that is firmly routed in concept rather than physicality. How exactly does one measure righteousness, and how does one apply that inexact measurement to something as complex as an entire nation's justice system?
Measures of the ability of a justice system are usually performed on conviction rates, or some other measure of effectiveness of conviction or reduction of criminality. However, the current amount of offenders currently being processed (either in prison or awaiting a trial, etc) within the justice system is simply a measure of the effectiveness of the implementation of the laws in place and the effectiveness of enforcing those laws. This is evidently no measure of how right (morally or otherwise) those laws are, or how right the enforcement of those laws are. How do we even begin to discretely quantify a measure of righteousness, and even if we jump that hurdle, how do we apply it to laws? The simple answer, and the one posited at the beginning of this debate, is that we are unable to effectively measure (in any scientific manner, at least) how righteous a law or the enforcement of said law is.
However, I disagree entirely with the solution suggested. I would even go so far as to say that a lack of any scientific measure of the righteousness of justice would in fact point to a solution that specifies that justice must be mutable.
If we ever found an effective measure of righteousness, then justice would be eternal. We would create our laws, create measures to enforce those laws, set up a fair justice system and then effectively end any discussion of what is and isn't fair and just. This assumes an absolute morality though. This would be the only situation where we could have an immutable justice system, because there would never be a need to modify it.
Morals and society change. What would be classed as both morally and legally acceptable even a hundred years ago may now be deemed wrong and illegal. Is this because society was moulded by changes in justice, or was justice moulded by changes in society? (This is most likely a subject best kept to another debate, as it is extremely wide ranging). I suggest that society is always at the forefront when it comes to either justice or morality.
The morals of society drive and mould justice, and this is heavily reflected in the way that the current democratic systems work. Actual governing is carried out by the people governed or the power to do so is granted by them. Members of society choose to elect leaders who, in turn, reflect the wishes of the people within the law. Society picks it government, and its government amends the laws based on the will of the people. (Again, this is something that can be left to another debate: is democracy really the will of the people, or a charade of such?).
If we stick purely to the theoretical aspects of democratic government, it should hold that justice is entirely mutable, and, in fact, a mutable justice system (one with an effective measurement of its righteousness other than by reflecting the wishes of the people) is one of the indicators of a democratic government.
"your an idiot"
Good start. I think you mean "you're."
"without fire eveporation dosent accur (sic)"
Yes it does. Solar energy causes evaporation of water. This is a standard part of the water cycle.
"fire will just attack the person who has the oxygen if you attck with air you give oxygen to the fire"
I'm sure I explained this very very clear in my post.
"if you want to no about the elements ask me cause you are weak (sic)"
I think I'm fine on my own thanks.
"Then it would be VERY, VERY difficult for you to understand where I'm coming from."
I understand. I just think you're wrong.
"Read the disclaimer.. sigh... will you please stop with this xenophobic bs... I'm glad you found a wiki article about it... but don't keep bringing it up here."
I'm sorry if being told the truth annoys you. And I don't use Wikis, just my natural intelligence. ;-)
"When you ask a Brit why he's proud of being a Brit.. would he not bring the past into it? Say because it was one of the greatest empires ever? How powerful it was? Started the industrial revolution and is now one of the most influential nations etc. etc.?"
Some will, and some won't. That's the point. You're stereotyping to create a negative portrayal of white British citizens. Not a single one of those things is a part of my identity and I wouldn't mention a single one of those if someone asked me why I'm proud to be British. (Quite frankly, I find the idea of being proud of where you happened to be born pointless.)
I don't identify myself as a reflection of my country's current or past actions. My identity is my doing, not the collection actions of people who happen to live on the same bit of land mass as me.
"then it's wrong for anybody to dislike anybody (in terms of races/nations).. and I'm pretty sure you dislike French. ;)"
I have absolutely no problem at all with French people. I don't see any sense in essentially grouping together individuals under a collective label and having any feelings, positive or negative, about that group.
You can continue to deny that you're being xenophobic, but I'm sorry, you are. Whether you feel you have a justification to be so or not is irrelevant. People who are racists feel equally that they have justification for their cause, and they, like you, are misguided.
"Xenophobic. I like that. Too bad it's not me though..."
Well, you're doing a very good job of portraying yourself as xenophobic.
"Tell you what.. read upon the history between India and Britain. Read the Indian biased sides, read the British biased sides.."
I know exactly what the history is, and I'm sorry but it's completely and utterly irrelevant.
"THEN tell me why I shouldn't dislike whites. Or have feelings of bitterness at the least."
Because I have no control over history. What my ancestors did to your ancestors is irrelevant in how modern British culture should be portrayed, and is not, in my opinion, a valid justification for the way you feel.
"Home invasions almost always means that they are just there for your stuff."
Actually, yes. Thousands of burglaries happen every day, and I'm sure in a lot of cases they happen when people are at home. There are not, however, thousands of the scenario you described. So, yes, home invasion almost always means that they are there for your stuff.
"Uh, who's going to collect the insurance?"
If they were to burgle my house, then me. I'd buy some nice shiny new shit, and enjoy it knowing that I didn't get shot in the face because I tried to be a hero.
Firstly, I'm an Atheist, so no problem with Abrahamic religion there. Secondly, I dislike capitalism because of what it causes to those outside of the capitalist "bubble"; imperialism, poverty, oppression, exploitation and abuse of human rights. Those inside the capitalist society live it up by exploiting those outside of it; as is the case with Africa. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thirdly, democratic politics doesn't work with a majority of centrist parties, as is the case in the UK. Democracy should work, and is by far the best possible system of politics, but it's ruined by capitalism's influence. The affluent become politicians, and politics makes you affluent.
So there you go; stereotype broken. I'm yet to see justification from you. Enjoy living your life with the burden of a xenophobic outlook.
"For example, many of us don't like the Iranians because of their threat to the world, not because they practice Islam and have tan/brown skin."
That's still not a morally valid position to hold. For example, would it be acceptable for me to say I hate Americans because I think that their (ex) president was a war-mongerer? No, of course not, because the actions of your president do not reflect on the individuals.
The same with Iranians. Just because their leader is a nutcase doesn't mean that you should hate Iranians. It's exactly the same as the OP's xenophobic stance.
"I want government out of my life."
That's a really naive statement, and simply implies that you don't understand (or you do understand and you're choosing to ignore it) the full extent to which the government is involved in aspects of your life that you would find extremely hard to live without. Do you drive on roads? Do you use electricity? Do your kids go to school? Do you enjoy the freedoms and protections granted to you in a constitution drawn up by government?
"Have you ever talked with a Canadian or a Brit asking them their honest truth about the health care? I have and they hate it."
As a Brit, I can tell you that this is certainly not the case. The NHS is one of the most cherished British institutions in place. Attempting to insinuate that the NHS is a broken and/or unvalued system to try to push your political bias is at best untruthful and at worst insulting to the millions of people (including members of my family and Stephen Hawkings) who owe their lives to it.
I absolutely love the NHS, and most other Brits do too. Don't use the "Brits hate the NHS" argument, because it doesn't hold water.
"By the way if you want the truth Obama is the biggest fraud out there he won't even open up is file so that we Americans can read is college thesis, gee I wonder what he must be hiding"
The following extract taken from this source:
A spokesman said that no student technically could have written a thesis in 1983, since the university didn’t even have a thesis requirement for undergraduates then.
"At the time Barack Obama was a student, the political science department had no mechanism by which undergraduate political science majors in Columbia College could receive recognition for writing an independent thesis,” said university spokesman Robert Hornsby. “The department's procedures for students to write theses were created in the 1990s."
Seriously, how hard is it to spend one minute (that is literally how long it took me to find this source) searching Google before you post irrelevant and unsubstantiated claims?
The calendar on my PC only goes to 2099. Does that mean the world will end in 2099? No, of course not. It simply means that someone decided that they should probably stop somewhere, and arbitrarily chose 2099. The very same way that the Mayans chose 2012 (or not, seeing as it's actually a misinterpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar).
"Surely conservatives have a larger brain."
As those girls in shampoo adverts would say; "here comes the science part."
"The country was still founded by christians. The founding fathers placed their trust in GOD."
Wrong. Do you know what Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli is? No? Well, check it out.
"Yeah, you know, everyone is a victim. Everyone's rights are being trampled on. In this it is the atheists whose rights are being trampled, in the gun control issue it is the pacifists (or whatever you want to label them)."
Well, more specifically it's everyone who doesn't adhere to a monotheistic religion, which is about 20%.
Actually, it's everyone's rights, whether they know it or not. America was set up to escape the religious persecution occurring at the time, and your constitution was set up to protect the rights of the people.
"I guess you can either chose to be a victim as often as possible by subscribing to the views held by every activist trying to change the world or chose not to be a victim by siding with the status quo."
My point was that people cherry pick which parts of the constitution they want to uphold and protect based on their biases and personal beliefs. America is very religious, and will find excuses and poor justifications for why, in this instance, it is okay to go against the constitution's very clear message regarding religion. Yet, because they also really love their guns, the constitution suddenly becomes water-tight with absolutely no leeway.
If you're happy picking which bits you like and which you don't then fine; go ahead. Just spare a thought for all of the history that preceded and shaped the document that became the constitution. As a Brit, I admire the spirit and ideals of your constitution, and by allowing one part of it to be so clearly violated, you open yourself up to the parts of it you do like being next to go.
Saying God clearly indicates a monotheistic religion, and there's no way you can worm around that fact. Regardless of any of the arguments used to back it up, such as it being used to differentiate from Communists (which is a poor excuse to pass unconstitutional law) or that it actually encompasses all beliefs (which it doesn't), it is clearly the acceptance of a monotheistic God (namely, the Christian god) in complete and utter contempt for the first amendment.
"And if you worship no one... it doesn't matter."
Well, people disagree with you, so it clearly does matter. It matters that the constitution can be so clearly contravened with such little opposition, and that the tyranny of the majority is so prevalent and has such sway.
But God forbid if anyone has the balls to try and curtail the ability to freely buy weapons on the naive thought that civilians could rise up against a highly trained and well funded military, but actually use on each other leading to one of the world's highest firearms death rates. Now THAT'S clearly unconstitutional.
"So, to sum up what you are saying, we just don't know about the origins of the universe at this place and time..."
That bit is right, yes.
"...and that the big bang theory is just an assumption and cannot be considered as the beginning of the universe."
But this bit you've misunderstood. The Big Bang definitely happened. It was not, however, the beginning of the universe. It was an event that happened at a finite point in the past that caused space-time to grow exponentially. The universe existed before (though remember what I said about the assumption that time existed pre-Big Bang) the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was simply the rapid expansion of the already existent universe.
What I'm trying to get across is that anything regarding the state of the universe pre-Big Bang is purely speculation (apart from the fact that it existed, as that is required in order for it to expand), as there is no way for us (currently) to see beyond the Big Bang. There may very possibly not have even been a before, as to talk about "before" means that we are subscribing to our linear understanding of time (which is a property of the universe itself). Therefore, any assumptions made about the universe (such as whether time existed, whether the universe had a "beginning", etc) are all just speculation.
They can, therefore, not be used within any logical reasoning (The Transitive Property of Equality you provided in your previous argument) as they are points that are presumed to be correct (axioms) but are actually not so.
"I'm not really getting what you are saying."
I misunderstood the point you were making with referring to the second law of thermodynamics. I've often heard it used to show how the Big Bang could not have happened. Apologies.
The cosmological argument is based on incorrect assumptions and therefore contains a logical flaw.
"2.The universe had a beginning (Big Bang)"
Here is the assumption. The Big Bang was not (or at least, cannot currently be known to be) the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang actually refers to an event in which the Universe expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. Unfortunately, due to technological constraints, we can not accurately say what happened before the Big Bang; in fact, we can't even say with any certainty that a before even existed. Remember that time is (or could be) a property contained within the universe, and therefore the universe itself exists within a plane that may or may not contain the dimension of time (or, at least, our linear representation of time). Take the first and second law of thermodynamics too. They obviously apply within the bounds of the universe, but do they apply to the actual universe itself? The universe, before the Big Bang occurred, may well have been infinite. Therefore, everything we think regarding the conditions of a pre-Big Bang universe are simply speculation at best.
"The First Law of Thermo talks about the universe being constant, in other words, that it only has a finite amount of energy. "
Time is an integral part of our universe so it is not clear how exactly one would characterise the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved. The idea of the "total energy of the universe" is difficult to define properly, especially with regards to gravitational relativity. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian measures the total energy of a system, and the Hamiltonian calculation for the universe shows a zero amount of energy when you offset gravitational potential energy against actual energy, assuming a closed universe. If we assume an open universe, however, then talk of energy conservation is meaningless anyway.
"With the Law of Entropy, things naturally fall apart over time, right? If the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? ... The universe could not be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete entropy by now."
This may or may not be true. Thermodynamics considers the evolution through time of the entropy of systems. As such, we can say that the the total entropy of the universe ought to decrease through time (that's assuming the the universe as a whole can be considered a "system" in the thermodynamics sense; which is not at all clear). However, If the origin of the universe also marked the beginning of time itself, then the universe can "start" with an arbitrarily large amount of useful energy without any contradiction to thermodynamics; because there is no period of time during which the universe's useful energy is increasing nor its entropy decreasing. Again, we're making assumptions about time and whether the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe itself rather than within the bounds of the universe.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that things are far more complicated when they come to the existence of the universe, and absolutely no assumptions can be made, which is what the majority of these "logical quandaries" about the origins of the universe are based on.
Incidentally, does your view of God (ie, infinite) not break the laws of thermodynamics? If you apply special properties to God that allow him to sit outside the bounds of physics, why not allow the same for the universe?
There is nothing to rebuke. You have yourself failed to provide any reason why the points you mentioned point towards any god, let alone the Christian god, being a probable or required starting point for the universe.
Provide some reasons why the afformentioned "acronyms" point towards the existence of a god, and I will gladly rebuke them for you. Are you simply repeating information that you have heard, or do you really understand the concepts you are trying to put across? We'll see. Okay, just for fun, let's take your first point regarding the second law of thermodynamics as the first point of contention.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. The entropy is a parameter for disorder. More order means less entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is often used by the religious to implicate a god in the perceived organisation of the world. However, this is a huge misunderstanding, as the second law applies to a closed system only. Although the entropy of a closed system never decreases, the entropy of a local system within the closed system may decrease, as long as the total entropy of the closed system does not decrease. This is very important to remember. Therefore, ordered structures can be created in a local system. For instance, water molecules may combine to form more ordered liquid water. If the second law prevented the decrease in entropy within a closed system and thus the formation of ordered structures, we would never have rain.
Order can most likely be created in a closed system which is far from equilibrium. When a closed system is in the equilibrium state, its entropy has reached a maximum value. The entropy of the closed system cannot increase further. Hence, there is no room to compensate for the entropy decrease of a local system within the closed system unless it is accompanied by an entropy increase in a neighboring local system. By contrast, if a closed system is far from equilibrium, its entropy will increase dramatically, which can compensate for a substantial entropy decrease of a local system. Thus, ordered structures are more likely to be created from a non-equilibrium state than an equilibrium state.
The Big Bang theory backs up this view of the world. The Big Bang creates an initial universe which contains an enormously high energy density and is extremely far from equilibrium. In order to reach an equilibrium state, the universe expanded rapidly, resulting in dramatic increase in entropy. This can compensate for the entropy decrease due to the formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on Earth.
Next!
That's not even remotely close to what he said.
Science is a generalised concept to encapsulate many individual entities. He's right in saying that "science" itself didn't create the earth; it was a process that occured which we encapsulate within the concept of science. The big bang occured, which led to the eventual creation of the universe. The big bang is a scientific theory. So, one of the scientific theories led to the earth's creation, not science itself.
Firstly, learn what fascism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Secondly, if anyone fits the mould of a fascist, then it is Michael Savage. Let's take a look at some of the defining features of a fascist.
- "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
- "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
- "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
- "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
- "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
Michael Savage hits five out of ten (half, just incase you didn't get that) of Umberto Eco's features of fascism, and probably more if I took the time out to go through his quotes a little better and find more specific instances of his disgusting views. Try also comparing Michael Savage to Marx's view on fascism; you may find the exercise interesting.
You're so quick to throw the fascism label around without truly understanging it; using it as little more than a pejorative epithet to attempt to discredit opponents with differing views. Yet you immediately come to the defence of someone who clearly displays the agreed features of fascism.
"In America we have something called the freedom of speech"
I feel I've already covered this irrelevant point in my previous post, so I'll just reiterate it for you. If he wants to engage in religious hatred in his own country, that is his right. His rights as an American do not extend across borders though, and the UK has absolutely no obligation to let him in. If you're going to engage in religious hatred and incitement to violence then I don't want you in my country.
"Give me a link to him saying all Muslims should die."
Third quote down, he advocates the killing of a a billion mulims; well over half of all muslims. If, as you claim, he is only advocating the killing of extreme muslims, then he is labeling over half of the world's population of mulims as extremists. Both clearly wrong and clearly vile.
I tend to stay away from pre-built machines, especially Dell and their customised hardware which ties you into using them exclusively for upgrades, etc. You'll find it cheaper to build your own, or even pay someone a bit to put a customised one together for you.
"He was talking about the Muslim EXTREMISTS! not the normal Muslims!"
He mentioned killing up to a billion muslims. Considering that there are between 1.3 and 1.8 billion muslims in the world, do you think that well over half of them are extremists? He is arguing for genocide, and it defies belief that any person would try to justify and stand up for his disgusting views.
He is clearly spouting religious hatred, and I am proud that my country has made it perfectly clear to him that he is not welcome here. If he wants to engage in religious hatred in his own country, that is his right. His rights as an American do not extend across borders though.
"But if they free North Ireland then they could change their name to Britain. Britain would be the states of England, Scotland, & Wales."
They wouldn't need to change the name; the name for England, Scotland and Wales is already Great Britain. Great Britain and the UK are two seperate things, both exist at the same time and denote different things. There would be no change in name by expelling Northern Ireland; the United Kingdom would simply no longer exist and only Great Britain would be left.
No, you're obviously not understanding. The name would stay the same, as Great Britain refers to the constitutional monarchy and unitary state of England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom wouldn't actually exist without Northern Ireland.
Either way, your point is totally irrelevant. If Northern Ireland were to be returned to the Irish, then the United Kingdom would no longer exist. It wouldn't be a matter of choice.
The United Kingdom is actually a shortened version of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," so without Northern Ireland there is no United Kingdom.
If I could stop buying my own ice cream, give up a much smaller amount of money and place it in a kitty with everyone else and then everyone could get ice creams (including myself and the people who initially couldn't afford ice creams), that actually sounds like a fantastic deal.
"According to the title of the article, the point of it was to say that second hand smoke WAS a hazard."
Yes. Based on evidence. The only people who try to counter it are the tabacco companies because, let's face it, they're the only ones with an agenda here, which is to continue selling their products and making a shitload of money.
"Those studies didn't prove anything... it just tried to create a correlation."
I can't beleive there are people out there that still believe that second hand smoke is perfectly safe. They're the real morons. The surgeon general's report collaborates results from hundreds of studies and shows a high statistical significance in those results that point to second hand smoke causing a myraid of physical health problems.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/
And this second report is the one I attempted to show you from MedScape, which again shows a clear statistical significance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/
"The Times article didn't even dispute the statement made by the tobacco companies."
Because The Times is reporting the news, rather than commenting on it. Good news gives both parties the chance to speak and allows people to make up their own minds. Good news shouldn't intepret what people say and attempt to tell you what you should think.
"The three quotes you used are from a montage on the Daily Show that are all from around the same time."
I will concede this point, but I'll explain why I think it's irrelevant shortly.
"He was having a specific problem with the healthcare that he was experiencing. everyone in the FUCKIN' WORLD has had a problem with the healthcare they've experienced at one point in their life (i haven't yet, but things like these are bound to happen i presume) ... and maybe he got over that little incident in the hospital? He is an emotional man. Most human beings think from the right side more than the left side of their brain. So it would make sense that in a time where he received bad treatment in a hospital he would freak out over it and make a few shows exploring the problems with healthcare in America. He's done with that now."
These two quotes, I believe, highlight the point that I'm trying to make, in that he is hypocritical and lacks integrity. A television personality with a large audience shouldn't allow single events in time to dictate their opinion. An opinion should be built up over multiple experiences. My family have had one or two bad experiences with the NHS, but the vast majority have been good experiences and I understand that no healthcare system is perfect. My opinion of the NHS though is still one of the highest opinions I hold. Whether he purposesly allows his opinions to flip-flop in the way he does, or whether they are powered purely by his emotional state; the fact that a single experience can give him such a low opinion of the healthcare system, and the fact that he suddenly has a very high opinion of the healthcare system when he feels as if he has to defend it against "socialism" shows to me that he lacks any integrity with regards to this specific topic. Like I said, his opinions are dictated by his politics and (as you possibly entered into the equation) short-term emotions; not facts. Where is his integrity in this situation, and why should I believe him when he says that he believes America has the best health system?
"What you're doing is asking me to do extensive search of all of his recorded monologues to find something that would suggest that he thinks America has the best healthcare. yes, because i'm king of the internets."
Again, I concede this point. I was being a little impertinent.
"Now it's time to explore what's good about the American Healthcare system and what's bad about Nationalized healthcare, which is what he's been doing so far."
And is it not also time to talk about what's bad about the American healthcare system and what's good about nationalised healthcare?
"Him and I both agree that America's healthcare system is the best in the world. Him and I also agree that there are flaws."
Can you provide me with a quote prior to the election of Obama in which Glenn Beck speaks favourable of the American healthcare system? Not only is there absolutely no evidence to show that his position has always been that the healthcare system is the best in the world, but there is evidence to the contrary; evidence that suggest he had an extremely critical view of the healthcare system. We're talking about quotes such as "It was one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life to receive healthcare in the United States," "A personal voyage through the nightmare that is our healthcare system" and "Getting well in this country can almost kill you."
Now he accepts that there are flaws, but continually boasts that it's the best healthcare system in the world. Not only is he factually wrong (the WHO ranked the US healthcare system as 37th, one of the worst amongst the industrialised nations), but his opinion differs greatly from one that held only eighteen months ago, before a democrat president was elected and attempted to reform the "nightmare" that was the US healthcare system.
Over the course of those eighteen months the thing that changed wasn't the quality of the healthcare system, but the potential political consequences that his opinion would have held against his political activism. He's allowed his politics to guide his opinion, rather than the other way around. His opinion has changed so substantially that the only cause can be that he is a man without integrity, allowing his opinion to shift along with that of the republican majority. His opinion currently isn't that this is the wrong type of reform required to better the nightmare healthcare system, his opinion is suddenly that America has the best healthcare system in the world.
Unless you can substantiate any claim that he has always believed that America has the best healthcare system (prior to his move to Fox and prior to the election of Obama), all I see is a man who will say whatever the republican majority wants him to say.
"So apparently you are saying [by making this debate] that anyone who has a change of heart, or changes their opinion is a hypocrite."
I was under no illusions that your stance on this matter would be to defend him to the rafters rather than admit that he has shown a complete lack of integrity. Let us first go over some of the quotes that were highlighted within this video. Take some time to go over them.
"It was one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life to receive healthcare in the United States. It's one of the hospitals where the president of GE is treated. If they don't care about GE, do you really think they care about schlubs that are just average working stiffs?"
"No matter how much the healthcare system would try to keep me down, I'm back. A personal voyage through the nightmare that is our healthcare system."
"We seem to be ... a society or system in healthcare that is just trying to shove the patients out that door as fast as they can. Getting well in this country can almost kill you."
Clearly, these are not the comments of a man who is on the fence about the level of care provided by the US healthcare system. These quotes came almost directly after having to go through the healthcare system himself and were based on his own experiences. He is clearly not a fan.
So, let's fast-foward eighteen months in time. Obama, a democrat, is now the president of the United States and wishes to reform the current healthcare system. Now let's see what Glenn Beck's opinion of the healthcare system in the United States is.
"You're about to lose the best healthcare system in the world."
"We are the only country in the world where leaders come from every other country to get health care when they can't get the right kind of health care in their own country." - Your Beck And Call, July 21, 2009.
And herein lies the hypocrisy. There would be absolutely no problem if he was honest and said that whilst he certainly (and obviously not from his previous statements) is not a fan of the current system, he also feels that the proposed system is wrong. This is called integrity. There is absolutely no way that a person can legitimately go from calling the healthcare system a nightmare to calling it the best in the world in eighteen months. Can you honestly tell me that this change in rhetoric is based purely on a change of heart? No, of course not. He's drawing a political line and doing whatever he can to keep America on the Republican side of that line, even if that requires him to lie about his own opinions on the American healthcare system.
He is lying about his own opinion in order to further his cause of opposition to the reform plans based on a purely political reason, and for this reason he is a hypocrite.
"Just because something is the best doesn't make it perfect. Glenn Beck wanted to expose the problems we do have, but he doesn't want an even worse version."
The main point here is how quickly his rhetoric changes from "a flawed health system" to "the world's best healthcare system" depending on the point he's trying to make, and I can see no other reason for the extent to which his opinion has changed other than it being based purely on politics.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you are against the proposed healthcare bill whilst also acknowledging the flaws of your current system (for which there are many), or even consistently saying that the current system is great. However, it's an entirely different thing to attempt to claim that the same system you berated previously is now, apparently, the world's best healthcare system because someone is attempting to reform it in a way that you don't approve of. If he had any kind of integrity, he would continue to acknowledge his previous opinion that the US healthcare system is flawed whilst also saying that he disagrees with the proposed reforms. That's not what he's doing though: He's allowing his politics to shape his opinions, rather than basing his politics on his existing opinions and morals. He has absolutely no integrity.
It's amazing how American's go on about their constitution up until the point where it goes against something they personally believe in.
"In God We Trust was what the founding fathers believed in and its what I believe in, its the USA and thats our motto."
I'm from the UK, and even I know that that is an absolutely baseless claim. The very purpose of the Americas was to escape religious persecution from the British. America was very much set up, from the beginning, as a country that niether endorsed nor condemned any single religion. The motto In God We Trust was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins.
I'm sorry, but please don't confuse your personal beliefs with fact. The USA was set up with ideals that included the seperation of church and state, and placing In God We Trust on your money and introducing federal law that states that In God We Trust is the national motto goes against everything that the idea of seperation of church and state stands for.
If you believe in your constitution and REALLY want to stand up for American values (the sort that the founding fathers stood up for), you should insist that In God We Trust is taken off of your money and removed as your national motto.
Or would you rather your government specifically endorses your specific religious view? Because if you do, then you're endorsing a future of religious persecution such as the one that America was set up to escape.
"However, if those wackadoo's who want it legal win, we should at least follow the example of New Zealand. They have rules and regulations that make it safe for women and children."
Thank you for providing both the fear-mongered baseless worries that people have in regards to prostution, as well as a realistic and workable implementation of a legalised prostution method. You said it yourself; with the correct regulation and rules the legalisation of prostitution can be safe for both women and children.
You answered your own fears.
"Prostitution is not a victimless crime as there are child prostitutes, and the human trafficking among other things."
The reason human trafficking if prevelent in prostitution is exactly because it is illegal. If you legalised prostitution, supply of (and demand for) native prostitutes will rise dramatically. Do you not see that trafficking and child prostitution would actually be lowered by legalising prostitution?
"Legalization of prostitution would lead only to ... a further spread of HIV/AIDS."
Again, do you not see how there would actually be a reduction in sexually transmitted viruses if prostitution were regulated and legalised? The majority of problems with prostitution are directly attributed to their illegal status.
But like I've said before, you're going on the assumption that you know what is meant by a beneficial evolutinary trait. Evolution only works by adapting an organism to become successful within its environment. If our environment "artificially" maintains organisms that would otherwise have been wiped out, that just simply means that the selection pressures have changed. It's still evolution, just not as we would have expected.
What is meant by an evolutionary stable system is where we reach a point of equilibriam where evolutionary changes and mutations don't cause the organism to have a better chance of survival. For an extremely crude example, whist in the wild we may expect an animal who would grow a third eye to be far more sucessful than other animals, could you also say the same for a human. Would a human with three eyes: A) Have a better chance of survival than a two eyed human, or B) Reproduce more often than a two eyed human? If not, then we have reached a point where evolutionary beneficial mutations are not causing those who have received those mutations to benefit over others. The evolutionary system is therefore stable, and it will take a change in our environment rather than a change in ourselves to cause evolution to take us down a different path.
But just to reiterate, saying things such as "People who would normally have died off are artificially maintained" simply means that that fact is a selection process, and what you would classically have expected to be beneficial traits, such as strength and speed, are no longer beneficial within our environment. This doesn't mean we are de-evolving or that evolution has stopped though; it is simply operating in a way we were not expecting. Society is our environment.
"I believe the Internet would be the most recent claim to greatness as well. It's our invention, and all the major players in computer innovation are American (google, microsoft, apple)"
The internet would be absolutely nothing without the invention of the world wide web by Tim Berners Lee, who was English.
What exactly is the problem? The White House seems to be having a hard time convincing America that a universal healthcare plan is the right thing to do (which it is), and one of the reasons for this is the large amounty of misinformation that is circulating. Some of the reports I've heard regarding the proposed healthcare changes are ridiculous.
In order to keep up to date with which rumours are circulating and to then quash those (mostly baseless) rumours, the White House needs to stay informed. They're asking you, voluntarily, to forward them emails. That's hardly a big brother tactic, is it? Come someone explain to me what the problem actually is with this?
Not to mention that no social security means no welfare, and with the majority of illegals using fake documents to fool employers (well, it's an ask no questions and I'll tell you no lies system with that) they're hardly going to present those fake documents to the government for scrutiny.
Joe is, once again, living in a dream world.
Factoring in hosting fees, etc, and the market rate that advertising on a site with a core user group of probably around 30 people can demand, I'd say they are probably turning a loss on this site. Unless they have something up their sleeves, of course.
If you think we should share the profits, do you also think we should share the losses? Who do I make my cheque out to?
I noticed an immediate flaw with these tests, which I will explain. The test I specifically took (preference to European Americans over African Americans) firstly asked me to perform a set of tasks where words that had good meanings were meant to be on the same side as faces of European Americans. The second section of this test then switched the location of the good words and kept the faces in the same place. The test was meant to show that I find it far easier to associate good words with European faces.
What the test actually did, though, was demonstrate that once the brain has managed to detect a pattern, it is then extremely difficult to get the brain to instantly forget that pattern and remember a new one. All the test found out was that if you make someone spend a few minutes sorting words and faces into one pile, then ask them to start sorting them into other piles, they're going to get very confused. The result have absolutely nothing to do with preferences for faces at all.
If I was initially asked to place good words with African Americn faces, and bad with European faces, then the test would have the exact opposite result. I wonder what would happen if we could replicate this test, and replace European faces with pictures of cheeses, and African American faces with pictures of apples. Would I turn out to be a subconcious fruit hater? I bet I would.
Correlation is not causation.
