Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 152 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 94% |
Arguments: | 144 |
Debates: | 2 |
I think that's a militant isn't it?
as in a militant athiest?
where as a fanatic is ideologe.
could be wrong
In a truely libertarian society the poor would be left to fend for themselfs, even Ron Paul (Big fan btw) would be shocked.
Total free market puts control of the goverment in the hands of the rich. Goverments would be who ever was the best financed, who in turn would be the one who gave the lowest taxes to the wealthest people.
So goverment itself would need to be regulated but by doing this you are also regulating the market as you are stoping the free market from financing goverment.
If you believe only big goverment benefits from helping the poor then at what point do you suggest assistance is removed, food stamps, mediaid, ambulace service, education?
Again I'm not against free market, I just don't trust the people who run it.
I don't think thats quiet what he saying, but more, in the interest of staying alive through sustenance, theft is acceptable if no other option is available.
better to steal than to die.
I think thats what he means, otherwise I have no F@#kin' idea what he means.
It's a type of socialism but socialism is a very broad label. This sounds more like a type of collectivism.
I hate disputing this because I don't totaly disagree with you.
But as they pay less tax than the rest of us morally they should be obliged.
If Warren Buffet pays less tax than his cleaning lady, well then surely he's in a better position to help them then she is.
Just to clarify
if people benefit its because of the free market
but if they lose out its because of goverment regulation?
So it was the free market that put an end to slavery? Generaly considered to be a good thing
And goverment regulation that led to banking crisis? Generally considered to be a bad thing
If taxes are theft then why do you pay them?
why would you hang about in the same area where you are been repeatedly robbed, waiting to be robbed again? that just sounds stupid.
So I'm a statists I'm I?
Thats the problem with you anarchists you believe your entilted to all the benefits of a modern society but should bear none of the costs.
In the domestic manufacture and business this is the case, but most products are manufactured where labour is cheapest.
You are probably correct that you get better value from purchases and services than you do from taxation. But I still believe that taxes are a necessary evil.
This is a myth, most of the costs associated with goods and services go towards advertisement and distribution.
And I don't think it's quiet a straight forward comparison either. The two depend on each other.
However neither am I suggesting that all government services are good or that all people benefit
I was a catholic once,but now thankfully I am an atheist !
Many many horror movies will be ruined for you
I want to celebrate this event !
lets party
how stupid can any religion be !
Oddly it's not a question of intelligence
to believe such nonsense ....
Well most of us believed it at some point
How arrogant religious people are ...
It's not going to be like a political party is it?
Ha Ha Ha ...
Eh? where's my coat?
Welcome to the cold harsh reality of Atheism.
The truth hurts, well sometimes :-)
The problem with your evidence is that if it's not excepted by the science majority then its not going to be accepted as fact.
The, evolution is not indisputable fact, theory sounds like this
Someone digs bones (not necessarily Fossils) out of the ground and everyone concludes that these must have belonged to an animal. But one person interjects and says "well they are bones and animals have bones but that is not definitive proof that these bones belong to an animal."
I know what evolution is and I know who Darwin was, I was educated in Ireland, wtf is Darwinism.
Only creationists fear evolution, where as evolution I think you'll agree, doesn't care who believes what. I can't see how it can be used to refute a god, only creationism, or a creationist god.
I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in a god and evolution as long as that view doesn't contradict the evidence. Genesis contradicts the evidence because even in its most diluted form it implies Man was the last animal to be put on earth.
|