My working:
Rearrange 6x + 2y = 2
-> 2y = 2 - 6x
-> y = 1 - 3x
Substitute y = 1 - 3x into 5x - 7y = 6
-> 5x - 7(1-3x) = 5x - 7 + 21x = 6
-> 5x + 21x = 13
-> 26x = 13
-> x = 1/2
Substitute x = 1/2 into 6x + 2y
-> 3 + 2y = 2
-> 2y = -1
-> y = -1/2
Check by substituting x and y values into both original equations:
5(1/2) -7(-1/2) = 5/2 + 7/2 = 12/2 = 6 which is correct
6 (1/2) + 2(-1/2) = 6/2 - 2/2 = 3 - 1 = 2 which is correct
Some people are gay – deal with it. Whenever I come across homophobia a little of the small amount of faith I have left in humanity dies. Why should you care what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom?
With regards to the common homophobic argument:
“The purpose of sex is to reproduce”
Does this mean you do not accept the use of contraception? That you believe that those who are infertile must remain virginal and that you must only have sex with the prospective mother/father of your child? Of course reproduction is one possible purpose of sex, but it is by no means the only possible purpose. Sexual oppression (deprivation of sexual pleasure) is a cause of later sexual deviancy and mental instability – just ask Freud.
Furthermore, who has decided that the purpose of sex is reproduction? You cannot argue that it is nature’s purpose, because nature has also made sex pleasurable – there is no reason to assume that nature does not also promote sex on the basis that it is psychologically beneficiary. As for God’s purpose – why should we accept God if he is willing to damn perfectly good people to Hell on the basis of their sexual orientation? This isn’t a God I am remotely interested in worshipping, and quite frankly I will actively disobey and despise him. Finally – we have no reason as human beings to impose a purpose on sex; why should we limit sex to an act of simple reproduction? No one is forcing you to have sex for pleasure, but let other people have sex without troubling them - whether heterosexual or homosexual.
The essence of Hayek's argument is simply: "We do not understand the system of economics in all its totality and so we should leave it alone". If scientists behaved as Hayek wishes economists to behave then we wouldn't have gotten very far - we do not understand or indeed know all physical laws and yet we were able to land a man on the moon - in the same way, we do not know all economic laws but we are still able to stimulate growth, alleviate poverty and increase employment.
A government has democratic legitimacy and can be held accountable for their failures at an election, whereas the business owners who would have free reign in an unregulated economy have almost no accountability and certainly do not represent your interests. Therefore, a government is a massively preferable manager.
I don't think there can be any argument that when Governments mishandle the economy the results are disastrous, but in order to prove that Government should never intervene with the markets you must demonstrate that regulation is always to the detriment of the economy - and this is something I don't think can be done.
With regards to the New Deal (which you accuse of prolonging the Depression) it was only when Roosevelt relaxed Federal intervention under pressure from the Supreme Court in July/June 1938 that unemployment began to rise again; until then unemployment had been falling and the standard of living rising. This is clear evidence that government regulation can serve to strengthen an economy - without the CCC, WPA, PWA, TVA etc... many more people would have been scavenging on rubbish heaps for food and queuing for the dole.
The most compelling case for government regulation was given by Marx, who demonstrated that capitalism is self destructive and invariably leads to crises. In the simplest possible terms:
1. Few workers = high wages = low profits = bust
2. Many workers = low wages = low spending = low profits = bust.
The Government therefore has to step in to balance the number of workers and their wages to avoid disaster. A communist state achieves this by providing the necessary number of workers to the business (thereby ensuring there can never be "too few") and setting their wages (thereby ensuring wage costs are kept low enough to enable profit, but high enough to encourage spending). State businesses can also be set up (obviously not just in a communist state) to provide work for the surplus of workers (thereby ensuring there are never "too many").
To focus on the areas outlined in the introduction:
1. Businesses and farms should have limits on production. Overproduction was a major long term weakness in the 1920s US economy which drove crop prices down and resulted in unprecedented rural poverty. If companies had planned production cooperatively (through a governing body... a.k.a. a government) then this could have been avoided.
2. For obvious reasons shown above, businessmen cannot sustainably exploit the workers because, in reducing the workers' spending power through low wages, they are depleting their market and sewing the seeds of their own bankruptcy (basic Keynesian economics).
3. It is important to note that Marx envisaged a "global communist community" which would include planned trade between countries - there would be no need for import tariffs. However, in the absence of such a community I would argue that tariffs are necessary to protect local businesses and reduce the incentive to outsource labour. Local businesses protected in this way are more likely to provide higher wages, and so keep more money circulating in the local economy - the Keynesian cycle continues.
4. The availability of credit should be kept balanced. The Wall St Crash and the 2008 financial crisis both arose largely in part due to credit. Enough credit should be available to encourage spending, but not to the extent that it cannot be paid back. In order to maintain this balance, governments need to strictly regulate banks (nationalising them seems a sensible option to me).
There can be little doubt that technological advancements do, regrettably, arise from war. However, "progress" to me denotes more than simply mankind's ability to kill each other more efficiently - or see in the dark - or land a man on the moon. Social progress (the progress we ought to be striving for) is nearly always set back by war. Poverty, hunger, disease, crime and joblessness all arise as a result of war in the vast majority of cases - as well as a terrible body count. There is no need to develop faster computers if there are too few and too poor people to use them.
Just to interject - the Bible wasn't written by God. The Old testament was written by Moses among others over a period of about 300 years. Not to be patronising, but the Egyptians were around before Moses (indeed, I believe Moses was well acquainted with them...) and so the authors were perfectly knowledgeable of the approximate length of a year. You cannot defend a literal translation of Genesis 1 as a creation story on the basis that a day back then meant "1000 decades".
I would argue that there has always been homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is natural and normal. In every historical setting there has been homosexuals - Alexander the Great was known to have a same sex relationship, from ancient Mesopotamia (3000 b.c.e) artefacts depicting same sex couples have been discovered and homosexuality appears in both Greek and Roman literature. The fact that it's referenced in the Bible (even if it's not condoned) tells us that it was practiced nearly 2000 years ago. Just because a minority have a certain preference doesn't make that preference a disease.
firstly all of the currently alive agricultural animals would die, as nobody would care for them and the species would go extinct
Animals are farmed not just for their meat, but for their wool, milk, eggs etc... They would still be looked after as they would still be needed - just not slaughtered.
the huge amount of land that would have to be given over to the growth and maintenance of fruits and vegetables would destroy habitats the world over
Not if sustainaible farming methods such as "crop rotations" were used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
not to mention the knock on effect of all the extra nitrogen, pesticides, herbicides etc, in the atmosphere would have on wild life and plant life.
There are plenty of alternatives to pesticides and herbicides - if you're a bit of a hippie like me then you can simply introduce wildlife into the local ecosystem which preys on greenflies, slugs and the like - no chemicals needed. Genetically modified crops are another alternative:
And there are others.
Obviously I think people should be expected to earn for a living - and those that simply refuse to when they have the opportunity and rely on the state should be made to work. However, I don't think you can tell whether someone is capable of earning a living purely because they have all their limbs. Unemployment is rarely due to laziness; inequality of opportunity plays a huge role (i.e. lack of education) and a lack of available jobs is often a major problem. In short, there are many reasons that this person may be asking you for money - don't assume they're lazy - give them a hand.
"Vegetarianism is generally flawed, if it is for the protection of animals and not just a lifestyle choice."
As a vegetarian I'm not under the impression that my refusal to eat meat is saving any animal. However, my decision not to eat meat absolves me of responsibility for the slaughter of animals for food. I am not a consumer - they are not being killed for me. My vegetarianism is therefore for my own peace of mind, rather than a political stance. Of course, if enough people were vegetarians then animals would be saved.
"Not really available to those in the coldest climes"
I'll concede that if there are no alternatives (as you rightly pointed out, there might not be for some) then killing for fur is justified. However, I am strongly opposed to the systematic slaughter of animals by corporations for profit - and these corporations do not just operate in the coldest climes.
"Would you ban meat eating as well?"
I have already stated that for some eating meat is the only way in which they can remain healthy, and for this reason I wouldn't ban it. I would encourage those that are healthy to become vegetarians, but I would never implement a ban.
"Not for everyone."
Let me put it this way - if there is an alternative then people should take it. If there is not an alternative (and this is in an extremely small number of cases) then killing for fur is justified.
While there is no proof as such that creationism as a concept is false (the creationist story as laid out in Genesis can be proven to be false, however) the most compelling argument for me is that creationism isn't necessary. There is no reason to assume a creator; there is no need for one. There is no reason to suppose that gaps in our current knowledge about the universe's creation will never be filled, and can only be filled with the assumption of a creator. A creator is unneeded complexity - like the others I follow the principle of Occam's razor.
"I suppose you'd say that if you and your family were at risk of dying from the cold."
My family could wear wool or silk (no animal needs to be killed in order to attain these resources).
"Strawman"
No doubt it's through my own short coming that I have no idea what you mean here.
"It does, the end in that you don't die, we kill animals for myriad things, why should fur be so much more immoral?"
It's not a matter of "kill or be killed" as shown by the example of wool. As a vegetarian, I'm opposed to killing animals for meat as well, though I concede that for a few meat is the only food which they can eat for protein. In this instance, I condone meat eating. As for vivisection - this is clearly for medical advancements which could not be achieved through any other means as efficiently.
So to conclude:
There are alternatives to killing for fur, which is why it is more immoral than killing through medical testing or (in some cases) for food.
I appreciate this debate is cluttered with posts, and you probably haven't had the opportunity to read everything I've posted so I'll reiterate briefly:
Adaptation within a species is called "microevolution" - and my example involving Guppies was an example of microevolution, not "macroevolution" which you are disputing.
Secondly; a Guppy will never evolve to become another modern day species like a man or horse (and no evolutionist claims this). However, a guppy may in the future evolve into an entirely new species. This occurs as a result of a number of factors - and constructive genetic mutations (which I have talked about in quite some detail in this debate) is one of them.
At a simpler level, macroevolution is simply microevolution happening again and again to a large number of a certain species - large enough so that the evolving members can mate with each other and not with the "unevolving" members of the species. To clarify: If the genetic make-up of a group of guppies changes enough over a period of time through "adaptation" or "microevolution" it will become distinguishable from a guppy who hasn't made this change. If an "evolved" guppy and an "unevolved" guppy cannot mate together, the "evolved" guppy is now a member of a new species.
I hope I have made this clear - let me know if you still have any questions.
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
"Killing animals in order to conquer the coldest regions of our planet" is not a justification for animal slaughter, just as "enslaving ethnic minorities in order to build tall buildings" is not a justification for slavery. If there is a moral difference between killing for fur and slavery (and I'm sure there is) it's not that fur acts as a means toward and ends.
As has already been mentioned, animals don't need to be killed for clothing - shearing a sheep for wool, for instance, does not result in the sheep's untimely demise... It is not a choice of "kill animals or walk around naked" - the only reason businesses kill for fur is to make money out of people's vanity. If we didn't live in such a consumer culture that manipulated our insecurity we wouldn't be slaughtering animals by the thousands for fur or leather.
Actually, it can be deduced logically
How could the premise "Socrates is a man" be deduced logically, except through inductive reasoning?
How could you assume that all men are mortal based on an observation of one man?
You can't - and this isn't what I'm arguing. I am arguing that you can only know "all men are mortal" through inductive reasoning i.e. observation. You would have to have observed many men to reach this conclusion. In my previous argument I simply argued that you cannot know Socrates is a man without first observing Socrates. That is to say, no amount of reasoning without observation will give you reason to believe Socrates is a man.
I can understand your professor's reasoning, but the idea that philosophy is only suitable for developing abstract thought is a mistaken one. Take Frege's First Order Logic, for example. This is a highly technical concept in the philosophy of logic and one that I would argue certainly needs external help if it is to be understood. This is just one example, but there are many; Derrida's deconstruction theory, or dialectical materialism... these are not easily fully understood without tutelage.
Would there be good without evil? Or would all thoughts and deeds be simply neutral? I'm not sure God wanted to be considered neutral - if I were him I'd have created evil and subsequently Satan too just so that everyone could see how wonderful I am in comparison. Then they would worship me and I'd satisfy my giant ego... What about the starving dying children I hear you ask? Ignore them - pray to me.... I order you.
A child dies needlessly every 3-4 seconds. I emphasise the "needlessly" because the causes of these children's deaths are famine, drought and disease. These can be addressed. I dare someone to have the audacity to claim suffering on this scale is part of an omnipotent and benevolent God's plan. These are innocent children.
A solution to life's unfairness? I don't have all the answers (contrary to popular belief...) but I imagine a good starting point is to do away with an economic system which rewards selfish greed, drives exploitation and places the lives of those suffering at the whim of charitable giving rather than in the hands of a structured and reliable welfare system.
