"Proving that one thing exists then expecting another thing to exist because it shares traits with the first, or has been redefined to be the same, doesn't prove that second thing to exist."
Oh wait, I see the flaw in this argument... I never did prove that the universe exists. kthx brb.
"You're not proving god's existence, you're just describing the universe and then tacking "god" onto it."
I was merely proposing a different perspective by comparing the supposed characteristics of God with the only thing that we can attribute these characteristics to, the realm in which things exist.
My argument was more like "God == X, Y, Z == Existence"
"You start by defining god, and then proving that it exists. You don't describe something else in terms you associate with god and expect that something to become god."
The Bible is a book written in only so many words. It cannot or may not have been designed to explain to it's readers in great scientific detail, what God is. The point of the Bible is not to probe God. God isn't something to be poked at with a stick and measured. If you don't believe, which is all it takes, then ignore it. No one is forcing you to change, in fact, if there is a God it is allowing you to live your life the way you see it.
"Yet there is still suffering."
I think good and bad are on the same scale, and that is the scale of quality. If good can exist, which I think it does, so will bad. You pay for your good with bad, and visa versa. So, yes. There is still suffering. I was saying that if we exist, God allows you to suffer and endures it with you, because it's important to know suffering to know virtue.
Interesting. I have some questions though.
According to the Bible, can one have faith in God but not man, and be right in the eyes of God?
Assuming you have faith in God, you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins... and you love all people, wicked or not, as family. The only difference is you do not seek instruction or help from other people because they can or maybe corrupt in their understandings.
I love rain.
I live in a place where in summer there are no clouds in the sky, only dirt, and the temperature reaches over 110F during the summer. So, personally, I love the rain. Fresh smelling, crisp, cool air, water, what is there not to love?
Ask me in a year though, I'm moving to Portland Oregon in a month... my opinion may change, but I doubt it.
This is what I'm saying. The only possible outcomes to this question are...
A) The operation is invalid
B) The second of two operands are invalid
C) The only valid operand is the difference of no operand
So, it's either the question if flawed and cannot give a positive answer (unless you can have to valid operands), the second operand is invalid, meaning the operation is invalid (as already stated), or the only difference found in the operation is the difference of X and nothing... which is X.
Again, my point is that you cannot distinguish because the operands are incompatible, the operation on the operands is incompatible, and even if you were to carry out the operation, or force it (which invalidates the results) you get only "natural disaster" by itself. You cannot distinguish the difference between the two.
To make the the operation valid you assume God. Once you do this though you should get the same result as before, "NO". X and Y in this case are equal and so there is no difference assuming Y is valid. An act of nature is an act of god, or an act of god through nature is still an act of nature, through god.
Unless you are so delusional that you believe there is some way to actually distinguish without a doubt, the difference, you will always get "NO". Like, if you believe right before a natural disaster, god comes down from where ever, as a unnatural thing, and says "I AM GOD AND I WILL PERSONALLY MAKE A DISASTER HERE THAT MAY LOOK LIKE A NATURAL DISASTER, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE I AM CAUSING THE DISASTER AND I AM UNNATURAL AND SO IT THE NATURAL THAT I'M ABOUT TO USE AGAINST THINGS, IT WILL ALSO BE UNNATURAL TEMPORARILY!!! HAHAHAHAH". That's the only way you could get a "YES" from this question.
HAHAHAAA
That's what I explained to him(her?)... anyone who stays @ #1 for a that long will be attacked... just like Kukla and yourself...
I guess if you're with your kids all the time and still posting to CD it's possible to have a life and be #1.
Maybe it's just that CD is incredibly slow?
I've been here too much in the past week or so, I think I need to get a life.
Terminator though is here when I'm not, and he's here when I am... so he definitely needs to get a life.
AND the leaderboard shows it. Whoever is on that leaderboard needs to get a life IMO. It doesn't really mean anything except that you're here all the time saying more shit than anyone else, constantly, for at least a week.
Terminator is #1 on that list haha, above Joe!
"The nature of God, according to myself, is to not exist. For to create existance, one must first not exist to out rule contradiction. This is to say that God is actually the manifestation of existence from nonexistence. And to define nonexistence, one would say it is without or beyond the limits of space or time. Is that not God?"
I think you're on the right track here, but God doesn't have to either exist of not exist. The definition of exist is to be. Can something be that isn't in space time and that isn't measurable in any way? I don't know.
"The existence of a god is an unfounded and undesireable belief. Religion has hitherto brought forth war and greed. We are better off without a god. Further, a god should not be your means of a moral compass, your own mind should be fully capable of discerning right from wrong."
Now this is what I don't understand. The existence of God is unfounded and undesirable. The existence of god assumes God actually exists, in which case you wouldn't have a say in how it's founded or how desirable a truth it is. You mean to say "the believe in the existence of God".
Religion has brought about a lot of wicked things because it is a human construct. Even Jesus said that the churches of his time were corrupt and be proclaimed to be the son of God. So, the belief in God didn't directly cause said trouble. It was the religious organizations that founded themselves on the belief in God. To say that we are better off not believing in God because of what religion has done, is to say that we're better off without cars because of NASCAR accidents.
The Bible states that man is flawed, corrupt and imperfect. It would be best to stick with the word of the Bible as your moral compass but most importantly make your own decisions. Don't have people telling you what to believe because you don't really learn the value of right judgement. You don't know why right is right and wrong is wrong. You won't know good from bad and bad from good. You won't know God and God won't know you.
So in a sense I think you're right on, you say last that we are all fully capable of making right decisions, and I believe this too. Religious organizations are convincing people that we need help to serve God when this just isn't true.
This is what I'm saying. Distinguishing is an operation that requires two valid operands. One of the operands is invalid, therefor you cannot complete the operation. The answer is "No" in any case (unless you are religious, and even then they can't unless they're deluded (or want to prove otherwise)).
Why so disputed?
This is very interesting, only because the public school board doesn't think it's important to teach in California...
I believe we should, ultimately, accept Mexican immigrants and legalize them. This sounds simple, maybe, but it is really a very complex thing to consider. There are a lot of particulars that could make or break the idea, and I've just sat here for maybe 30 minutes thinking about the implications of every tiny thought that's went through my mind... but I believe that the best thing to do would be to legalize the immigrants that are here, now, but deport Mexicans that have a criminal history here which is hard to tell when they're not citizens, and deport drug abusers.
It would help everyone involved, I think, because Mexican immigrants would have the freedom to move out into job sectors that they aren't allowed as illegals. This would cause them to seek higher education, to push out of the barrios that they are stuck in, and would give them rights as employees that they currently need. Getting people out of the barrios will be more difficult than just legalizing them, it's going to take a lot more, but Mexicans are hard working people, good people, they really are. Even despite the fact that they aren't recognized by the state, have no protection in the united states, and are so looked down upon by resident population of America.
So I say we legalize them for the good of the Americans that are and are not currently recognized by the state.
That, or you can all get the f*ck off of my property. I am over 50% real "Native American".
You say that's not what you mean but in this context that is what you are saying.
I'll use this as an example...
To an atheist, agnostic, etc...
You are given two components of an operation. X and Y
Where X is valid and Y is invalid
Compare X to Y
The difference is moot, there is nothing to compare.
To a religious person...
You are given two components of an operation. X and Y
Where both X and Y are valid
Compare X and Y
The difference may or may not be quantifiable either way, but it's valid.
Even if you don't accept my argument, not all religious people believe natural disasters are caused by God's will. Some believe (I'm speaking for a born again theologian) that God doesn't interfere with human affairs. He doesn't condemn people on earth, he doesn't help people on earth, he doesn't guide people, nothing, he doesn't even listen to your prayers. This is a highly religious Christian and he wouldn't say that natural disasters are caused by god... BUT he does believe in end-times prophecies, so he may or may not believe that any given event is related to the end-times.
This is McDonald's plan...
1) Build fast-food empire
2) Tune for maximum profit
3) Train army of loyal customers
4) Cause health problems
5) Buy up every other fast food joint in the world
4) Slip everyone not eating at McDonald's their death sentence
5) Become the only food supplier in the world
6) Get incorporated into the One World Government
7) Global Government Food Stamps now buy McDonald's food
8) People become unhealthy, must work from home, only eat McDonald's
9) Cow Shortage, no one can raise the cattle because of their health
10) Declare a state of emergency through the McDonald's Party of Earth, assume position of authority on crisis
11) Declare marshal law
11.5) Build state-of the art self-sustaining automated compounds and factories to take over the production of cows via complex machines that are built by the people of the world from their homes.
12) Begin collecting the bodies of the dead (Human) and building over the property they leave behind.
13) End meat shortage [Use human bodies in place of cow, watch profit margin explode]
14) From their homes, the people of the world will not realize the human population falling rapidly
15) Package the second to last human as a McRib, send to last human.
16) Robots and cows inherit the earth.
The one about thought processes would be interesting but you put "Yes chemicals" and "No Im in control" as the sides. I think that they're caused by chemicals and a bunch of other things, and you can be in control of your chemicals or thought processes... so I don't really want to get into it.
The one about fear and respect, it's situational. Then, the one about which name is more descriptive, I don't see a purpose it debating this.
You're saying that if someone doesn't accept the belief in God that they can tell the difference between an event caused by god, and one not caused by god...
If you don't believe in god there should be no difference because you don't accept the second, supposed, cause of the disaster. The question would immediately become invalid.
The only people that should be able to tell the difference are religious people or people of faith. The two supposed causes can be valid, one caused by nature, and one caused by god.
Can people distinguish between an unnatural event and a natural event? No. An event in nature cannot be unnatural.
Can people distinguish between a natural event and a natural event? No, there is no difference.
Funny, this topic assumes a God that can act in the realm of the 'natural', and then assumes God isn't natural.
The only gun that anyone needs on any game is the AK47, or any variant of it. The AK47 is Russian.
Russia would beat the shit out of all of us by themselves. France would drown in their tears, America would go bankrupt and burn, Germany would flee in their V'Dubs and spin out thanks to their "German engineered" ass-heavy chassis's, England would talk a bunch of shit with crumpets in their mouths, suffocate, and then disappear under a vibrant flash of white light... and then Russia would have a party for a day and carry on trying to implement true socialism.
If this were allowed, elephants and a whole lot of other animals would all the sudden start dying off "naturally" at an increased frequency. People will find loopholes in the laws and exploit them until there is no other choice but to make it illegal all together.
It shouldn't be allowed, but people shouldn't find so much value in ivory, whale fins, buffalo skin, etc, either. It's not acceptable to rob the graves of people, why should it be more acceptable to do it to animals?
Assuming the government is owned by the people where the majority rules (and assuming the government is fully functional), the government always has the power of more than half of the people backing it. So basically if the people consists of 1,000 citizens, the government is at least 501 of those citizens. 501>499
The government exists to have the power and to express the power of the majority over the minority. Very important too, is that all 1000 citizens would have their faith invested in the government and their faith invested in the idea that more people know better than less people (haha), or they can leave the government. But still, in a majority rule where half the citizens bail out of the government the government would have at least the power of 251 citizens over 249... effectively the government would have the power of 500 citizens though, because of the faith invested by both the majority and the minority.
The people is the sum of all citizens in any case. If all citizens were to agree about everything and all citizens were equal there would be no government and this question would be invalid.
Be more specific about the type of government please, that would help.
Usually yes.
Word == Tool
Vocabulary == Set of tools
Grammar == Skill with tool set
An expression on paper (or by mouth) is formed first in the mind and in the language that it will be exporting the structure in. If the mind is using a small vocabulary and isn't skillful in applying words, how can you trust the final structure? The people with no knowledge of tools or skills might also have no knowledge of structures.
Who would buy a house designed and built by a man with only the knowledge of screws and duct tape, but the artistic?
I think most of the people here can, but the community doesn't reinforce this behavior enough, and punish people who don't argue well.
Instead, people use the up and down votes to reinforce or punish people that have like opinions or opposing opinions. I've been saying this since like 2007 or 2008. The point of the site should be to tune your opinions and your ability to argue a point... not about jacking people off that you agree with or that agree with you.
This is one of the reason I'll argue a point that I don't actually believe, but it's an idea that isn't represented. I don't really want people to agree with me, I want people to question their own ideas. Most of what I put here is just shit that I've learned to conceder in thought, and in arguing these points I (should be) learn(ing) more about the pros and cons of these ideas.
If the demographic were to be more strict about their standards I would conform. I could cite my sources, I could argue well, but the people don't seem to want it. I float in and out of CD looking for new people who expect this. Usually, bright newcomers are the best arguers, but they leave after a short time because everyone else here is more used to four character opinions than well thought out arguments. Hard working newer people often don't have opposition or just learn to post shit arguments like everyone else.
Anywho, I believe that the people here can, but we need to try harder. Punish people who don't try, even if they're right or seem right, and reward people who may be wrong but argue well.
AND QUIT POSTING STUPID OR REDUNDANT DEBATE TOPICS!!! Maybe once a week post a debate topic about the next weeks topics. Vote on the topics, then go at them for a week and write well thought out arguments. I'll upvote anyone who argues well.
With the analogy of the blister on the foot, your whole body doesn't suffer, but you could say "my body is suffering" because the component of your body that is suffering (the blister or your sensory input from your foot about the blister) is still part of your body.
When I say the "universe" suffers I mean that a component of the universe suffers. The person that is suffering is a part of the universe so the universe suffers. Not the entire thing, but the part of the universe that is the person.
I think the right question is to ask whether or not actual reality is perceived reality. In other words, can there be an actual reality that isn't perceived?
The answer to the question as it stands is, of coarse. Perceived reality is always different from "actual" reality. Everything that you see, hear, feel, taste, smell is a construct of your mind through your limited ability to sense the actual reality.
Everything that you know of exists inside of your mind, as a product of your mind, with help from sensory input. You are already in a matrix.
God is both the person that is suffering, and the suffering itself. When I say that God is existence that means everything that exists. The material the suffering person is made of, the thoughts of the suffering person (because the thoughts exist, to the person thinking the thoughts), and the suffering that the person is feeling.
Again, God is all knowing. He knows the suffering because he is the suffering. Not entirely, because the person suffering is only a competent of God. Just as acknowledging the blister on your foot doesn't change you into a giant blister.
God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If you look at this definition, it is either impossible, to exist in our realm of existence, or... it [God] is our realm of existence. The only thing that you can fit these characteristics too, is the universe itself. The universe is "all powerful" over this domain because it is the domain. The universe is "all knowing" of this domain because it is the domain. And the universe is "all present" in this domain because it is the domain.
The only "miracle" that can't be debunked is the fact that there is this realm... before existence couldn't have been absolute non-existence. Existence has either always been here or it came from non-existence which makes absolutely no sense (but still may be true). So if God is the very fabric of the universe and existence itself, how can we prove that it doesn't exist??? We have no other choice but to accept it.
Also, in this idea, if people are suffering, and they are made of God, God cannot ignore the suffering people because he too is suffering.
We are flesh machines. Our point is to spread, like bacteria, throughout the galaxy and maybe further if there is a further... unfortunately for us, we have reached a point in human history were we believe that we are important as individuals outside of a group, and we fight the group for our individuality. This is both romantic (hopelessly unrealistic/useless to everyone) and retroactive.
We are in a natural depression, caused by the progression and evolution of the human species, from a hostile environment to a controlled environment, and from a small group/individual perspective, to one that requires socialization and a hive mind and dictation. That is, large organizations that control most if not all of people's lives. Now, don't take this the wrong way, because people quickly jump to conclusions when anything like this is said. What I mean by "control" is more of a "direct" than "force".
The most important thing to a group is the individuals, and their well being, second is the group's goals. In space, learning to be an individual as well as a component to a group is essential to survival... and it is also essential to their ability to complete tasks efficiently. Also, dictation is required when dealing with so many components, and it's something that we need to just deal with, as individuals in situations that allow us to be successful.
Anyhow, to me, life is about propagation and control. Typical male answer I guess.
"Which Person Or Persons Are You A Fan Of On This Website?"
On this website, they are my favorites. Their opinions are still here, just because they've went MIA doesn't mean I can't agree with them anymore, or disagree. They played by the rules whether I agreed or not, and they put up some pretty good arguments, something I can't really say about anyone that's here now (although I do admit, I don't really follow debates anymore).
Also, this is a question asking for a personal opinion. I gave mine.
The Tooth Fairy exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a Tooth Fairy. So, in a sense, The Tooth Fairy does exist for both the people that believe in The Tooth Fairy, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in The Tooth Fairy.
This makes sense to me.
My point is that even if God doesn't actually exist, and God is nothing more than a figment of people's imaginations, God still has power through people to do God-like things... such as not-exist but still change the universe as if he does. Even the tooth fairy does this, and Santa Clause. They might not actually exist, but the belief in them causes changes in reality that suggest they do exist. Teeth under pillows, cookies by a fireplace, letters to Santa.
I think that's enough to merit the existence of something, to see the effects of it's existence. Scientists do this all the time... "There's a distortion of the path of light from this cluster of stars, as if the light is bending around some sort of super-massive object that doesn't emit light itself... I believe it's a black hole because of the effects of light around this point in space."
Even if it's not "God" that is the cause for the change, and it's just belief itself... God is a type of belief because certain results come from the belief in God that don't come from believing in the tooth fairy.
Theists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I believe that he does.
Atheists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I don't believe that he does.
Both rely on scientific proof. Thing about theists is they look beyond what is scientifically testable. Beyond what's right in front of everything in existence.
God exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a God. So, in a sense, God does exist for both the people that believe in God, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in God.
Adam and Eve were the only two people in existence. Incest causes deformations. Darker than usual pigment in the skin was probably a deformation. The white brothers and sisters thought that, because they were white, that dark skin was odd, wasn't attracted to it, and only likes attracted. Dark skinned brothers and dark skinned sisters... they humped and made darker skinned children...
Yes, that's it. Evolution of inbreds.
Not impossible, but improbable.
If you're into this type of thing check out a book called "The Biggest Secret" by David Icke. Shape shifting reptilian overlords from another dimension, hollow world, extraterrestrial "gods", Atlantis, Aryan super race = Alien overlord/Monkey slave hybrids, Hitler lives forever, vibrations that induce fear and hate to oppress people's ability to love and smoke weed, secret tunnels, worm holes, etc.
You'll be insane by the time you finish the book, guaranteed.
The pyramids of Giza were made of poured cement, not cut limestone. Even if they were cut from limestone, I don't think a space faring species from another solar system (or galaxy) would come to earth to help a bunch of monkeys bury a single monkey in a huge monument made of rock. It's a lot easier to imagine slaves hauling up ground sand and rocks, and water than giant limestone bricks.
At the same time though, I wouldn't be surprised if aliens did visit and share their knowledge...
Right and Wrong have nothing to do with whether or not god is good. Right and wrong are values for the quality of means. Good and bad are values of virtue in the end results. Sometimes the right thing is not a good thing.
Also, I don't understand how you can say that if right and wrong only exist because of god's fiat, it makes no difference to god. Please explain.
It's funny that you say this...
If you've ever studied any particular subject you would know that the more you learn about it, the more there is to learn about it and everything else. It would seem like anyone who's studying anything is just creating more questions... and for most people, questions are flags that indicate that something isn't known.
Liberalism is an socio-political and economic ideology.
I hear this all the time "Liberalism is a mental disorder, Hurr durr" and the likes. What they're really saying is "I can't understand this idea, so instead of attacking the idea I'll just attempt a petty attack on the people that hold the idea by making them feel like they are inherently defective."
What a bunch of pussies.
Let's recap this...
My question: List problems with modern society.
Your answer: Society is much better than it was.
Ignoring how you've missed the point, I asked another question of you...
My question: How is today's society better?
Your answer: Living standards get better because of technology.
In Context: There are less problems than there were in the past because of technology.
Ignoring how you've missed the point in context, I asked another question of you...
My question: What does technology have to do with societal problems?
Your answer: Technology couldn't happen without society.
Why don't you learn to think in more than <50 characters so that when you come contribute to a debate it's not so obviously for the points.
"basically playing like a zombie"..."you run around and shoot people on sight".
The problem is, you are a spectator. The "fun content" is what spectators see when they look at a game. To players, what they're looking at is a system of mechanical properties that they interact with. It's just an Input/Output system, and they're competing with other people to work the game in their favor. The same goes for chess. You see wooden board with pieces and people looking serious... what they see is a set of laws.
Your opinion is that the problem with society isn't societies problem... but that goes against the question unless you mean to say that the only problems in society are not societal problems at all... they are just issues concerning human nature.
An interesting question, if these 'issues concerning human nature' are really human nature, why do we have a problem with them? We choose what is virtuous or not, why is something that comes natural to us so unwholesome? Take for instance, selfishness. If selfishness comes naturally to us, why do we see it as something that is not virtuous?
Overpopulation is a problem of what society? There are fully developed counties in Europe that are seeing a negative population growth.
Inflation is a societal problem, or an economic problem?
Corruption, Racism, Sexism, Ageism, and Environmentalism, ok. Why do you think these are problems?
"Society can never achieve greatness as long as someone can succeed on another person's failure."
Who here is succeeding and who is failing? I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I get your point though, about the economy that is supposedly based on greed, but can you explain this a little better? Use examples maybe...
Too much is when it gets in the way of being productive.
An hour of television is too much.
It's not proper communication if there isn't an exchange of information. The television just talks at you and you listen.
People could be studying more effectively via a computer.
People can learn via television, but they can also learn by drawing pictures in sand.
Most likely not. Paper news maybe but not television news.
Stress is caused by people having shit to do, but their favorite shows are always on, so they'll never actually do what they need to do... that must be stressful. I think maybe, you think that if people didn't have televisions they would shoot other people, but that's because you have watched too much television in your life...
If you play chess you know that your duty is to capture the king or eliminate all other pieces without threatening your own pieces... You have to be at least five steps ahead of your opponent, which is a gamble at first, and highly tactical later when there are less variables.
The same is true in first-person shooters. If you're a good player, you are always predicting your opponents moves. When you play tactical game types like capture the flag or control point, it gets even more tactical. You have an entire team to manage, you have to predict spawn times, spawn locations, your enemy's goals, advantages in terrain, what load-outs your team is using, and what your team is using... RTS's are even more difficult when you get into it.
"A human is not capable of causing enough mayhem and pain in their one short lifetime to merit an eternity of this kind of hell."
How do you know that standing up to a God doesn't merit eternal suffering? Remember, assuming there is a God that created absolutely everything in existence (maybe even God itself facepalm), you cannot judge the righteousness or virtue of it's actions. God defines what is right and wrong, after all. You don't know that suffering for eternity would be infinitely better than other things that God could put you through...
This isn't about assisted suicide, it's about the legality of killing yourself.
You can know suicide is "illegal" before you kill yourself, but the part of the law that keeps you in accordance with the law is the sure punishment that you'll receive if you break the law. Once you've killed yourself or, once you've broken the law, you cannot be punished by the law... so why is there a law at all???
If you ever get a chance, and assuming you haven't, read "iCon: Steve Jobs, The Second Act in the History of Business".
Steve's a weird one, and while I admire him for his business strategies and some of his philosophical outlook on life (and more), he's made decisions that I don't particularly understand. Abandoning his only child and her mother after struggling, himself, with the idea that he didn't know his biological parents.
He's a typical guy, really, but one that is resourceful, dedicated, and very clever... but, with all of that said, he's still a crooked, cut-throat business man at his core.
Hitler was a fascist. Fascism supports or is close to capitalism. In our current system we have three social classes, Upper, Middle, and Lower. In a fascist state, there is a great divide between upper and lower class, and there isn't a real middle class. In socialism you have no class division. So seeing as Obama supports capitalism, he is closer to Hitler... but then so was almost every president of the United States.
Hitler enslaved an entire race that was within his grasp and systematically killed them. Obama isn't even close to doing anything like that. Look to Canada and Western Europe, they are more socialist than we are, but they aren't killing millions of people or enslaving society... You people need to chill the fuck out about Obama and let him do the job that we put him there to do.
I wouldn't date that person in either situation, but I like genuine people more than I like fake ones... so obviously that would put ugly people before fake people.
I can appreciate genuine people more because it seems like people who don't fake things are rare and have to fight hard to not become fake. It also shows me that they don't place serious value on societal expectations, or that they don't do something just because someone else does it (or a lot of people do it). It's harder to put off a million people's actions as being fruitless than to carry on...
It's also important to adapt though. Say, you have an ugly person without a sense of passion or style vs an ugly person who is authentic and has a sense of style... the one with style or passion is better... but that's more of a "ugly on the inside" issue that matters a lot more to me than most people (or it would seem).
I would say music was at it's best between 1915 and 1949.
So, on a scale, 1 (one) being the best...
1. 1915-1949
2. 2000-2009
3. 1990-1999
4. 1980-1989
5. 1950-1969
6. 1970-1979
Classical from all eras is great but if we're talking time periods I think that means popular music of the time... It's hard to get that in there.
Also, I know that this isn't in 4 year cycles.
The question is:
If a tree fell in a forest and no one was around to hear it, was it censored? No, it's just that nobody cares about the fucking tree.
I seem to be making this point every day, which isn't surprising when you're dealing with a political parties' issues... OBAMA ISN'T A SOCIALIST and he ISN'T HITLER. Realistically, in saying Obama is both, you're creating a paradox because Hitler was a fascist, which is at the opposite end of the political/economic spectrum (from socialism).
So basically, if you're running around the streets of DC with signs that contradict themselves and aren't applicable to reality, nobody will give a shit.
Maybe if they all put the signs down and turned in some applications for employment somewhere Obama wouldn't look like such a failure. He is only one man, he can't do your work for you while you're "busy" being a pretentious bigot.
If my ~1" tongue works, a 1" penis should be fine assuming you know how to use it (I know, the mechanics behind oral and intercourse are a lot different, but still...).
It seems like most men are worried about being too small. What I mean by that is, when the question pops up you automatically think "bigger>smaller?" instead of "smaller>bigger?" and if this is the case that means most men are smaller than bigger... this means that, in the gene pool, there are less bigger than smaller, which also means that there are more men out there making children with smaller than bigger, which means that there are more smaller, successful, than larger successful... You get it, right?
Abortions are legal, and sometimes (in China for instance), they are mandatory under certain circumstances, but people will still go on with the pregnancy and have children, even if it means escaping shelter (leaving the country, family, home). Suicide isn't illegal, really, because law can only react to an event (unless you can definitely prove that someone will or is about to do something), so what, handcuff the cadavers?
Assuming medical technology get's better, someone who is "on the plug" in a few thousand years won't be on it for long. And about using the death penalty, Hitler tried this on innocent people... When you're killing off all of the worst people, who will be next in line? It'll get closer and closer to innocent every day.
I am cautious, careful, intelligent, quick, agile, efficient, analytical, suspicious, very aware of my environment, skilled in ballistics, have a compact body structure, and I typically hate people.
I will kick into survival mode, and I will succeed in keeping myself alive (and a handful of loved ones) as long as possible.
1. Where where you?
Just got to school, it was maybe 5am, I attended marksmanship at 5am to 6am every morning, class started at 8:31am, I watched the second hit in ROTC.
2. What where you doing?
Waiting for class to start, the school was dead silent, no planes in the sky, everyone was gathered around the radio and television.
3. How old where you?
I was 16.
4. How did you feel?
I was confused, at the time we didn't know what happened, I thought it was odd that everyone already suspected this terrorist group so quickly... I didn't trust it, so I assumed it could be any other nation, or some form of domestic terrorism, though I wasn't too fond of terrorism at all at that point, I thought it was just a stupid word they made up because they did something terrible. I was a marksman in ROTC, as I've said, so I was thinking about a draft. I was ranked #1 marksman in all of California (out of every school in California with an ROTC program), so I was afraid they would look at me and say "You're a sniper, grab you're gear, you're being pushed out to boot camp immediately..." I was pissed though, I sort of wanted that to happen. I couldn't believe what I was seeing every time I walked by a television.
5. What was the worst thing you remember about that day?
Fear through confusion, unsureness about a lot of things...
We cannot co-exist as well as we do without dedicating time to society... that is work. When you go for 160 hours, to do something that you don't like doing, you are just doing your part for society, and feeding yourself. You obviously have a computer and no means of creating one from scratch, and yet you don't realize that the computer, the internet, the electricity that it uses, all steams from hours of someone's time... more like, everything that you do on a daily basis is only possible because of millions and millions and MILLIONS of hours of labor... and here you are complaining about it via all of this advanced technology.
Don't be an idiot.
P.S. there are only 168 hours in a seven day period... if you're working 160+ hours a week, you're not sleeping or showering, or eating much... or pooping.
If you care about the greater good, you stick by it. You don't lie to get people to buy your greater good, you explain why they should. If still they decline, you keep pushing. If you know why your greater good is great, you'll be able to sell it to anyone without a single lie.
Church is to the mind, what a prison is to the body.
"Here in the USA, it started with the constitution. It was drawn up by wealthy business people in order for them to increase their own wealth."
Wealthy business owners didn't exist at that time. Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers, was a political philosopher that believed America was a nation of farmers... He wasn't particularly wealthy either, his father was a planter/surveyor. How does this equate to a wealthy business man?
"A poor man wise is like a book never read. To himself, he lives. To all others seems dead. This age thinks more of a gilded fool than a thread bare saint in wisdom's school." Thomas Dekker lived from 1572-1632
Thomas Dekker, meet Post-Modernism.
Assuming this is true, doesn't the poor agree to this policy? In America everyone is given the chance to turn in applications, to educate themselves... it's up to you, if you're poor, to get a job, support yourself, get an education and move up. You have to prove yourself in America, you can't just abolish class and hope everything will work out.
Also, there is a fair distribution of responsibilities and suffering across every class, the human condition guarantees it. Which set of suffering and responsibility do you want? If you want to know that there will always be food on your table, indefinitely, rise from the lower class, if you then want to know that you can never be fired from your job, rise from the lower middle class, to the upper middle class, and build your own business or infiltrate the ranks of an existing business... if then you want to ensure everything in your life will be perfect, and you want to change the world, rise from the upper middle class and join the ruling class, but in doing this you'll probably have to become an immoral person (If you already aren't one).
The lower class doesn't deal with any of the responsibility of the middle or ruling class, so in a way they have it easy, and this can be said about any class. One class deals with one form of stress or responsibility, the other deals with a different kind. No one is really holding the lower class down, they do that themselves.
This is something that Plato touches on in the Republic, here's a quick summary:
"For one thing, if the ruling party mistakenly legislates to its own disadvantage, justice will require the rest of us to perform the (apparently) contradictory feat of both doing what they decree and also doing what is best for them. More significantly, Socrates argues that the best ruler must always be someone who knows how to rule, someone who understands ruling as a craft. But since crafts of any sort invariably aim to produce some external goal, good practitioners of each craft always act for the sake of that goal, never in their own interest alone. Thus, good rulers, like good shepherds, must try to do what is best for those who have been entrusted to them, rather than seeking their own welfare." -Link
"... first, a black man, second, a liberal black man, third, a liberal black man with strong convictions, and fourth, a liberal black man with strong convictions who is still very popular, in the White House is their worst fear realized."
It's funny because it's true.
"Some say their kids are at risk for liberal indoctrination..."
I am sick and tired of hearing how out of control any president is.
Every president ever is or was a reptilian overlord from another dimension. Every King, Tyrant, President, Oligarchy, or any other government establishment had a part in conducting the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Bush was actually flying the jets that hit the WTCs, he survived because he is pure evil, and can do shit like that. Obama is a flaming homosexual from (insert nation that doesn't exist on earth) and doesn't have a birth certificate because he was never born in the first place, and he's always out there in the world trying to molest our children.
Why do you care if Obama is going to talk at a school? Have you nothing better to worry about? He's the fucking president, not Godzilla, he will not blow fire or shoot lasers at the children. If, for whatever reason, you have a problem with the President of the United States talking to children, you need to get a grip. Children just want macaroni necklaces and candy, they don't care about socialist agendas. They will not be instantaneously transformed into socialist automatons. Get a grip.
In my opinion there are about 4 good reasons to debate.
1. You get your reasoning/facts/opinions straightened out in your own head.
2. You get to test them against other reasoning/facts/opinions.
3. You somewhat force other people to think.
4. You spread organized information (topics of debate, arguments, points to arguments, etc)
Somewhere along the line, you have to change your beliefs or opinions, or learn something. If you have an argument and you test it against someone else's, and fail, you have to rethink you argument. If it was worded incorrectly, try correcting it. If your reasoning is wrong, there will be no way to fix it...
Cognitive Dissonance is something that everyone deals with. It means basically that you hold multiple ideas, and some of these ideas are in conflict with each other. Debating is a great way of smoothing out your ideas (or abandoning some) in order to relieve cognitive dissonance.
"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change." - Confucius
What even is this "Soul of Humanity"?
Whatever it is, modern society was born from it, so ultimately it would be the soul of humanity destroying the soul of humanity.
In all seriousness, I think I know where you're coming from but this "destruction" that you see and claim is from society is only a societal shift that starts on the individual's level, so it's easy to see, for anyone that takes the time to see it.
Add an argument for this debate --> Survey
It's not spam, it's related.
I would say yes, but there is no real reason to it. It's like saying "fuck" only when you're angry... it means something because you don't usually say it, and it's a pretty bad word, especially to some people, but it's meaningless or useless to say.
So as an acceptable means of protest, no. If you're protesting you should have something more meaningful to demonstrate than burning flags.
Also worth mentioning, and I would have posted this above but it's been voted on, so I can't edit...
The netbook seems like it almost never needs to be changed. You can use it literally all day (if you put it to sleep when you're not using it) and plug it in @ night, it will never die on you.
The opposite is true for notebooks. You can use it all day while it's plugged in, and get anywhere from 4-8 hours out of the battery... Mine last about 4 hours maybe a little less depending on what I'm doing (or 5-6 hours if I turn the display lights down and switch to the integrated GPU).
So another upside to netbooks, they use very little power.
Netbook:
>> Limited set of IO options
>> No CD/DVD unless it's through a USB CD/DVD drive
>> Less USB ports
>> No firewire (IEEE 1394/b)
>> No Serial Ports
>> Video output in some form (sometimes)
>> No PCI Express expansions
>> Gigabit ethernet only
>> Efficient processors
>> Slower, and less memory
>> Integrated GPU (shares system memory, less powerful gpu)
>> Small dim displays
>> Low resolution
>> Small keyboard
>> Etc.
If you need a $400 calculator that you can check your email with, the netbook is best... or if you need an extremely mobile computer with an IO centered around networking...
Notebook:
>> Full set of IO options
>> CD/DVD Drives
>> More USB
>> Firewire (IEEE 1394/b)
>> Serial ports
>> Video output in some form
>> PCI express expansion slots
>> Modem/gigabit ethernet
>> Better processors
>> Faster and more memory
>> GPU's (in some cases multiple GPU's)
>> Bigger, brighter displays
>> Higher resolution displays
>> Full keyboards (-num pad)
>> Etc.
If you need power and portability, the notebook is best...
Jubilee and I have three computers here.
$800 Lenovo (Desktop)
$2600 15" Macbook Pro (Notebook)
$400 Samsung NC10 (Netbook)
Jubilee owns the Lenovo and the NC10, I own the Macbook Pro... Look at the price difference!
$1,200 for a very powerful desktop, and a very portable netbook... and I paid more than double that for a single computer with the benefit of both. It is about 80% as powerful as the desktop and is about 50% as portable as the netbook. If you look at the money Jubilee has spent on her machines per year, it's only $200 less than what I've spent.
(I'm not trying to justify spending >$1400 for an Apple product :P )
The economy is so bad, Karl Marx would suggest the proletariats seek the bourgeoisie for decent work.
These have actually happened to me (lately):
The economy is so bad, bums ask you if you need money, every time you see them.
The economy is so bad, my collections agencies have stopped trying.
Anti-humor:
The economy is so bad, 1 in 10 people in the U.S. are jobless.
The economy is so bad, people typically accept this claim as an excuse for everything.
> Example A:
--> Fred: "I didn't wipe my ass"
--> James: "Why not? Sick bastard!"
--> Fred: "The economy is so bad"
--> James: "Oh, yeah... sorry to here about your shitty ass, bro. God bless."
> Example:
--> James: "What's up Michelle?"
--> Michelle: "I have a job interview as a stripper"
--> James: "No Money does not equal no moral standards"
--> Michelle: "The economy is so bad"
--> James: "You're making a morally corrupt decision, I'm saying that just because you don't have money doesn't mean you also don't have moral standards. Everyone I know is taking up a morally corrupt job to make money, as if that'll make life any better..."
--> Michelle: "The economy is so bad"
--> James: "You're a pharmacy tech, I work at a gas station... who needs the stripper job more?"
--> Michelle: "THE ECONOMY IS SO BAD!"
--> James: FFFFFFFuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
The economy is so bad, the economy is so bad...
I just made all of these up... if they're not funny, I am why, if they are funny, since the economy is so bad, I'll give them away at only 99 cents a piece, I can't go any lower than that, the economy... it is so bad.
Universal Truth never changes, our wisdom of it does. Humans cannot grasp Truth, so when we find that something is not the way that we thought it was, we are simply saying that our minds were not in accordance with Truth. So, our ideas were false, or our ideas seem true.
To be able to know something about anything, you would need more matter and energy than exists.
"I have used PC all my life and I always felt that there was a bunch of complex crap that I never use."
Mac's aren't obvious about it, but they are equally if not more "complex". OS X, is by far, more power-user friendly than Windows.
"All I do is play, surf the net, use itunes, and do homework. What is the best thing for that?"
It is true, that OS X is not good for "play". The curser physics are not the same, so it makes gaming feel a little awkward, besides that, it takes special attention (by the developers) to make a game run as good as it does on Windows on OS X. Not that's it's any more difficult, it's just that DX is sort of an industry standard.
If you're going to get into programming or some sort of science like that, I would probably argue for getting a Mac, but because you'll be gaming and doing normal shit it's more cost effective to get an average PC and let it run itself into the ground.
Mac's aren't any more expensive than Dell's, and no one has a problem with Dell's pricing. It becomes expensive though, when you want Apple to add your memory for you, and HDD's and stuff like that. I think of it as an idiot tax, like the lottery. Find two like models, and compare them, you'll see. In some cases the Mac is less expensive.
You should have posted this under my argument because it just goes to verify what I've said, in more detail. You're on the right track though, which seems odd to say because we don't usually see eye to eye.
If you're high, like you swear you're not, I wonder if I have a mental problem that keeps me high all of the time. I only drink, or smoke cigs, never anything else... so if I'm high someone's poisoning me or I have a mental problem... but you're making sense to me finally. :)
Me: "Man is god, science is just a tool for studying man."
You: "Anthropology is the study of man. Science is the study of nature, the world around us, and the laws that govern them"
Anthropology is what, an art? No, it's a science. When I say that science is a tool for studying man this includes anthropology. There is no conflict.
Science can only explain to man what is in man's capacity to know. It is man explaining the universe, not science.
I like to think of CD as a semi-pop debate site. 99% of the people here don't have valid opinions about anything (50% of which are trolls, 40% idiots, and 9% younger people that don't try), especially compared to other sites... This one doesn't take itself too seriously, but the 1% of the people here that are here often have shown their valor somewhere along the lines with a debate or an argument that is worth reading. As iamdavidh has said, everyone here is passionate about something, give them reason to be logical about that something and then you'll see.
Anyhow, I think the creators called CD "an Online debate community for logical, passionate people" because that's what they want here... That's what the site is here for... the more logical and passionate people, the better the site will do... It's an ad that is calling you to duty. Beat all of the buffoons that have been here for years into submission with something worth-while.
It is impossible to have no government unless there is only one person on the earth, and then even still you would have a government of man and animal. Seeing as this question becomes even more irrelevant with only one person on earth, I'll stick to explaining my first claim, which is that a world of people without governance is impossible.
First, when you subtract government, what is left? Not just a bunch of individuals. Mafias, gangs, friends, family... There is always a structure of people. Even if you're using a family, there are males in that family, the bread winners, and the females that raise the young... That is a government. A small government, only about 7 people, but it would quickly become a competition between families. The joneses have 15 children, we only have 12...
Same story with gangs, mafias, cartels... they are all governments in and of themselves. It becomes whoever has the biggest party, just as it is now, and to be honest, the systems that we have now liberate people more than they have ever. I don't walk around and beat people up or put people down or give people any disadvantage for not being american when I meet them. I actually treat them with more respect because I know if they're not American they are doing more with their lives than the people around me... If I were in a gang I would have to be uncivil with them, because everyone in my gang would have taught me to be that way, pressure me to be that way... So In a sense, I am more free to be myself, as an individual, under a huge government than if I were in a small one.
Sorry if this is repetitive or incomprehensible, I am having a beer or (insert x amount here).
I have an interesting and serious question for you:
If a big bang happens and nothing is around to witness it, was it really big and did it really bang?
---WTF---------------------------------
"However, as far as ideas go, the scientific method has advanced us much further
than a society then our beliefs in God(s)."
>>the scientific method has advanced us
>>much further than a society
>>then our beliefs
>>in God(s).
O_O
---------------------------------------
At least one person in this debate is seeing when they look...
We're not here to test the validity of either, independently of the other. The parameters of the debate are set. Consider what is known about God and compare it to what is known about Science.
Step one is whether or not God (if it does exist) could create a universe... Yes, because it's all powerful, all knowing, etc... and whether science could create a universe... SCIENCE IS A METHOD, NOT A THING THAT CAN CREATE!!!
So, JakeJ is finally saying something that makes sense. ;P
No, Science isn't a person, or a thing that does something, science, like I've said, is nothing more than a tool. It's a function of the human mind, in other words.
The human mind supports evolution via a function. "New" content is found via a function of the mind. The Bible was also a human invention. Hence, man is god. The Bible is less outdated than the last scientific theory because the Bible isn't a theory, it's a book. People may take it as a theory, sure, but that doesn't mean it is one... does it?
