I don't get it, between the "opposed" label, the "no, it's very fun" tag, and then fact that I was shooting down the other side, you have to ask if I have an opinion in the debate?
How? There is nothing in science that either proves or disproves God. In fact, if someone would like to explain how this experiment could even be set up, I would like to hear about it.
Sure, science can and has contradicted specific mythos of certain religions. Many followers have come to the understanding that the point of mythology is not litteral truth, but rather figurative truth.
If anything, science ultimately encourages new forms of spirituality. For example, check out how followers of the Law of Attraction validate their beliefs with quantum physics.
C'mon, this one is not even close. The Republicans represent a single group: white men. Democrats, on the other hand, represent everyone else (including a number of white men such as my self.)
Take a look at a Republican rally and then take a look at a Democratic rally and you will see an obvious difference. America, no matter how badly Republicans wish it so, is not a country of a single race that all thinks the same thing about every issue.
A cross section of a democratic rally is much more similar to the country as a whole. There, you will see races of all kinds, both genders, gays and straights, religious people and atheists.
Football is more physically challenging, because the competition level is much, much higher. Let the nations top athletes play polo and let an exclusive number of people play football, and this would be reversed.
If Polo is more challeging, do polo players live the rest of their lives in chronic pain like ex-NFL players do?
Personally, I'd rather swim for an hour than be hit 30 times by a 300-pound man on steroids. But maybe that is just me.
A blind man who examines the front of an elephant will have a much different understanding than a blind man examining the elephant's rear. The two blind men's descriptions would even seem contradictory. . .
The atheist often seeks to understand his world by understanding its smallest parts and putting the pieces together, i.e. a bottom-up approach. "God", on the other hand, is quite simply the top-down approach of understanding the universe. God and nature are synomous; the only difference is which end of the elephant that blind humanity desires to study.
I have complaints about the American government; we all do. But at the end of the day, no style of government has brought about more freedom than a Constitutional Democracy. No style of government has brought about more equality and social justice than a Constitutional Democracy. No style of government has brought more freedom and liberty than a Constitutional Democracy.
That copy and pasted speech was horrible. You want to blame environmentalist for high gas prices and paint the entire scientific world in some giant conspiracy?
Gas prices are high because the Iraq War ended the lucrative oil-for-food program, disrupted production lines, and created uncertainty in the World's cheif oil producing region. Global warming activists seek to reduce the demand for oil, which logically would REDUCE oil prices, not raise them.
To argue that global warming gets unfairly positive coverage by the media is an absolute laugh riot. Out of the thousands of questions asked by the media in our current presidential race, something like eight of them have been about global warming. This despite being a major issue of concern for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Look, even oil companies are finally admitting that global warming is a legitimate concern. Even the Bush White House has reluctantly admitted it.
You will find what small number of places where drilling has not been allowed in the US are for environmental concerns other than Global Warming. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good argument.
Carbon dioxide is only .036% of the atmosphere (making it the fifth most abundant gas.) There is absolutely no logic behind the argument that says a gas that is 36 parts per million cannot have an effect on things.
That's a little unfair, because under a good President 9/11 doesn't happen. Still, to answer your question, I would have put all my resources into finding, arresting, and trying Bin Laden.
The Iraq war is the WORST mistake the USA has ever made. Our national deficit is the WORST it has ever been. Our income discrepency is the WORST in the western world. The terrorist attack that occurred during his watch was the WORST in American history. Many of the branches of the Executive under his control such as FEMA, the EPA, and the FDA are all at their most inefficient and WORST points. Our reputation across the globe is its WORST ever.
Not only is Bush the WORST president ever, it is very difficult to name even one aspect of being president that he has done better than any other president. Except maybe tap dancing.
Check out videos of David Stern and the 1985 lottery - - Stern takes a nervous breath, rummages through several envelopes, picks the one with a bent corner, and ta-dah, Patrick Ewing goes to New York instead of Atlanta or Sacramento.
I highly, highly recommend Hendrix's BBC recordings if you can find them. Plus, I am very pleased that Syd Barrett's name got a least mentioned somewhere in this debate.
I know this will not be the winner, but my vote goes to Keith Richards. Sure, there are probably a thousand guitarists that can play faster or more complicated stuff; but in the end, isn't it about who sounds the best?
While tons of other guitarists have come and gone, Richards keeps laying down fat riff after fat riff. Look at "Satisfaction" from the 60's, "Gimme Shelter" from the 70's, "Start Me Up" from the 80's, and "Saint of Me" from the 90's. And he's still going strong today. . .
Sure, it takes a lot of skill to play fast. But a rarer, and more important skill, is the ability to play something simple and make it sound awesome. Nobody can take a simple riff and make it sound better than Richards.
I need a couple of white skinned, blonde haired young men wearing ties to knock on my door, and explain to me how Jesus hung out with the Indians and doesn't want me to drink coffee.
Say I decide to kill my neighbor, so I buy a gun. I then hide in the bushes, aim my gun at him, and pull the trigger. But it turns out the gun does not work. I have at that point committed the crime of attempted murder, but no harm has occurred.
Yes, I am aware of the primary vs. secondary dichotomy, and there are some legitimate concerns about seatbelt laws as primary offenses. Designating seatbelt laws as secondary offenses might be better policy. . .but even as a primary offense, it takes very, very, little to avoid the extra police scrutiny.
I disagree with your assessment of what is a crime. Intent, or any type of mens rea, is not necessarily an element of every crime; regardless, a person's seatbelt use is an intentional decision in all but the most bizarre of circumstances.
I must confess, the concept that a crime requires "harm, injury, or loss" is a strange to me. Are you saying attempted murder isn't a crime?
The Beatles, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Radiohead. . .these are all awesome bands. But no one has a larger catalog of top-rate songs than the Rolling Stones. The sound of the Stones damn near defines rock. There is a reason they are called The Greatest Rock Band in the World - - because they are.
Phillip K. Dick wrote stories that expanded the idea of human imagination in a manner no one before or after has been able to duplicate.
Face it, the real reason pot is illegal is so 1) cops have increased ability to harass minorities and lower class people, and 2) profits from alcohol and pharmacy are artifically protected. These reasons do not justify the loss of freedom of millions of Americans.
1 out of 3 Americans have tried marijuana (and that's just those who will admit it.) Should we really imprison a third of the country?
People on the other side of this argument want healthcare to be affordable, ironically, only to those who don't need healthcare. That is not what I consider to be a very good solution.
Can humanity agree on a single definition of 'evil'?
No.
Seeing as how I am part of humanity, this has been the easiest debate ever. Case closed.
If the question was "Pirates vs. magic ninjas" you would be in the right.
CNN, as far as I am aware, has not said that the assination of a candidate would be a good thing.
The funny thing is all the determinism people use science as their proof. . .meanwhile quantum scientists have known for decades that some things are completely random. Simply put, it is impossible to have randomness and true determinism at the same time. If determinism and free will are the only two choices, determinism clearly fails on its face, and free will prevails. Or you can ignore science.
Arr! Blackbeard took five bullets and twenty stab wounds before going down. Ninjas don't even use guns. No contest.
Neither side of this argument can be proven. But I bet those of us on this side are a lot happier.
I quite honestly do not understand what you are trying to say. I reckon every time something is outlawed, it is making something criminal that was previously not a crime. Do you mean "The problem comes when you make something criminal which SHOULD NOT be a crime?" If so, you are merely begging the question.
As far as "It becomes justification for further inquiry," I haven't got the foggiest idea what you are saying. I wasn't aware that inquiry required justification. Seeing as how seatbelt laws are in place, and you are saying they shouldn't be, don't you want further inquiry?
All I can figure is you meant a different word than "inquiry." ("Injury" perhaps?) After all, if you were against inquiry into this topic, you wouldn't be participating in the debate.
OK, I am man enough to admit that you and the other guy totally dogged me. Thanks for the info.
Whoa, since when were Republicans against people doing every little thing possible to make money? I thought this was pretty much the Republican mantra.
Please explain what information exactly did McClellan leak that was illegal? I seem to recall Rove leaking infomation that is directly specified as illegal. Are you calling for him to go to jail, too? People who say things you don't like should go to jail, I guess.
Personally, I think open government and democracy go hand in hand.
I agree that electric vehicles should be subsidized, but I must draw issue to your claim that "electric cars are much more efficient."
Any time energy is transformed to a different type of energy, some efficiency will be lost. In a gas-powered car, the burning of gas directly powers the engine. One coversion of energy = only one place where efficiency is lost.
Electric cars, on the other hand, go through a ton of steps. Coal or some other method is used to create mechanical energy, and efficiency is lost. Then, mechancial energy is transformed into electric energy, and efficiency is lost again. Then the electricity is transported often thousands of miles away, and the resistance in the wires causes a loss of efficiency. Also, there is efficiency lost as this electricity is transformed several times into high voltage and back to low voltage. Then, the electricity must be coverted into a battery, and the chemical energy of the battery converted back into electricity; two more steps where efficiency is lost. Finally, the electricity must be converted into mechanical energy - a process which, by itself, may be more efficient than a gas powered engine. But not when you consider the twenty or so steps the electricity has to go through.
What is not to like? I'll bite.
-Paul's version of "limit government power" means preventing the Federal government to do anything at all, including crucial roles such as insuring our medications are safe and effective and protecting the environment. Meanwhile, he wants to greatly EXPAND state governmental power, so the whole thing is a wash.
-Nobody likes the IRS, because the tax collector is never popular. But most people realize they are necessary. The income tax is far more equitable than sales taxes, which unbarely burden the poor and barely affect the rich. Progressive taxes should be the LAST tax to go, not the first.
- Obama too wants out of Iraq. Do you realize how much power America holds by having military bases around the world? Why on Earth should American want to voluntarily rid themselves of power?
- I've never understood why a Libertarian could possibly support the Gold Standard. Libertarians want even the most crucial government roles handled by private enterprise, yet they are upset that they can't buy gold directly from the government? I thought Libertarians were about freedom. Under the current system, if you think gold will do better than the dollar you are free to invest in gold. Why enact a system where everybody is essentially FORCED to invest in gold?
It scares the crap out of me that Paul supporters think he will bring back a respect for the Constitution, but meanwhile all of his platform is things only Congress can constitutionally accomplish.
So, let me get this straight: you would oppose a small fine set by an elected legislature but you are cool with the exact same fine set by an appointed executive?
If you are oppose laws that cops get away with then I guess you oppose laws in general.
Jesus was a fictional character. Can't we make him do anything we want? Not only did Jesus convert to Islam, but he also went through a stage where he preached only to dogs. He now plays in a 5-piece jazz band outside of Hoboken, Connecticut.
You've got to be kidding me here folks. In a race between a black guy and a guy who thinks the civil rights acts unfairly violated white store owners, you're picking the racist?
America has barely gotten through a President who hates the income tax, hates social security, imposes his personal view of the Constitution over the other two branches, encourages privatization, has worked hard to weaken FEMA, the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, etc, puts in pro-business and anti-abortion judges, opposes universal healthcare, stem-cell funding, global warming research, and many other popular programs.
The solution to America's problems is not to put in a President who wants to take all of these Bush policies to an even further extreme. It is just plain stupid to put yet another Republican who hates government in charge of the government.
With Obama you get a President who strongly opposes the Iraq War and Bush's unconstitutional policies. (Note that Obama is an actual expert on the Constitution, not a self-labeled one like Paul.) So basically, with Obama you get Paul's best two talking points, plus you get a President who is not an extremist radical.
Paul wants the US to go back to the Robber Baron days of the 1880's. Obama, and the vast majority of the American people, do not.
No. And we could solve a lot of problems by keeping men from being Catholic priests too. I say, only dogs, eunuchs, and hermaphrodites should be allowed to be priest.
It is a very entertaining show, but they are a little heavy handed with their points. Enjoy the ride, but make up your own mind on the issues.
It is a poor analogy to compare aberrant behavior like suicide to prayer, which has been practiced by the vast majority of the Western World. As ridiculous as it sounds, society can in situations benefit from the meme of suicide. Look at feudal Japan, for instance. Dishonored Samurai committed suicide, which had the positive benefit of instilling a greater sense of honor among the Samurai as a whole.
Prayer, and its Eastern equivalent of meditation, has been practiced in nearly every successful society. Memes survive for a reason; advantageous ideas multiply in popularity and negative ideas tend to fail. Societies that either prayed or meditated have triumphed and societies that did neither have fallen to the wayside.
There is no presumption of informed decision, nor that humans always know what is best for them. Quite the opposite. Humans don't always know why a meme is good. Ancient Hebrews benefited from not eating pork long before science the diseases that come from the uncooked meat. Prayer is probably been a winning meme because meditation has a positive impact on one's mental and physical health, but who is to say?
Yeah, well now link me the Popular Mechanics article addressing the STRAW MAN!
"No one could pull this off." Don't you mean, no one other than the conspiracy the government tells us pulled it off??
Call me insane, but I think the notion of punishing women for having sex is not a good idea.
"It is a taking of a human life however you try to spin it."
So when a the female body naturally rejects a fertalized egg is that a taking of a human life? Only a minority of fertilized eggs make it to conception.
Let me ask you, what other rights do you assign to fertilized eggs? If the death of a fertilized egg bothers you, are you a vegatarian? After all, a cow is a million times more developed than a fertilized egg.
It never fails to amaze me how many people are against abortion on the theory that fertilized eggs deserve to live, but then oppose welfare, education, etc. etc. Guess what, kid? We cared about you when you were a blastocyst, but now that you are actual human being you can go f* yourself.
I am quite convinced that if there is a god, and he were to speak, it would certainly happen.
I would rather watch a high budget movie with tasteful product placement than watch a movie that has neither product placement, nor an adaquit budget.
Sure, it sucks when movies go out of their way for product placement. Other times it seems quite natural (see for instance, the Cokes ads in Blade Runner.) In real life, their are product names everywhere you look. If a movie is trying to be realistic, one would expect brandname products and logos to occasionally be on the screen.
I love how what you "personally" feel is in direct conflict with acedemic studies. Science says force = mass times acceleration, but I personally feel that force = velocity times volume, so that must be the right answer.
I know I own a cat because ownership is a human construction. A cat can't own a human.
If I woke up on a different street every day, maybe I wouldn't know what street I lived on. But that is irrelevent. That's like saying how would I know I was human if I was a dog. Well, in that situation I wouldn't. Tell me, if I didn't know what street I lived on, how come when I give someone my address the mail reaches me?
Similarly, I know 2 + 2 = 4 because I can take two things and add two more things and count four total things. It isn't hard. This is true even without experience. I can imagine two things being added to two things and see four things in my head.
Let me ask you: If I don't know how to tie my shoes, how do they get tied? If I don't know how to drive, how did I get home last night? If I don't know how to play a C chord on my guitar, then how is it I am capable of playing a C chord? If the both of us don't know any languages, how is this communication possible?
I guess I can't expect a response, seeing as how you don't know how to use a computer.
No, his apostles ate HIS flesh. If he was a zombie, it would have been the other way around.
Oh, I have nothing against them. Believe it or not, I am quite capable of liking a band without calling them the greatest band ever. Had the question been "What makes TOOL such a great band?" I would not have responded.
Let's see, the Beatles were the first to popularize having the band themselves write the songs, the first to print lyrics with the album, the first to do a theme album, the first to wear long hair, the first to take rock outside of the tight restraints of the blues progression, the first to do backmasking, the first to do a psychodelic album. . .they influenced thousands and thousands of bands, they were so talented that every single member had a #1 hit as a soloist, they were probably the most popular band in the history of rock.
The Beatles are not my personal favorite, but seriously. What has Tool done that can compete with those credentials?
The above "supporting evidence" is proof that the press is not favoring Obama. Obama won Texas, not Clinton.
Do you realize that the vast majority of fertalized eggs are rejected by the woman's body? Only a fraction of fertalized eggs survive to conception.
If the death of a fertilized egg is murder, and the act procreating has a strong risk of this "murder" taking place, then logically it would be highly immoral for anyone to ever have children.
One thing I know for sure: Some philosopher with his head in the clouds can say we don't really know anything. Come back to planet Earth, where we know all sorts of things. I know I own a cat. I know what street I live on. I know 2 +2 = 4. I know if I drop a bowling ball on my groin it will hurt like hell.
Centralization is more efficient. America is ran more efficiently, and is in a more powerful position in the world with a strong Federal government, the same way Walmart has a tremendous advantage over individually owned stores.
To naysayers who think this will lead to less civil rights, look at the record. Civil rights, free speech, freedom of religion, rights of the accused, reproductive rights, these are all things that individual states have violated. More often, it is the Fed protecting rights against actions of the individual states than it is the other way around. The examples of Federal courts striking down the unconstitutional actions of States are too numerous to count.
It sounds like you are against communication AND compromise, not against communication in and of itself.
Bush has given North Korea a ton of incentives to stop their nuclear program. Where was all the vitrol from the right when that was happening?
The proper question is "how much benefit can we draw from stem cell research?" However, your argument is that government should absolutely never fund scientific research. Therefore, it has to withstand scrutiny to whatever exagerated numbers I put up. What if stem cells could save half the lives in the world? Would you still be against funding it?
It is a very dangerous proposition to say that government should only protect rights, because who gets to say what a rights is? You for instance, seem to be saying that a person has a right to x amount of healthcare, but not y amount of healthcare. Why should you get to say what is a right and what isn't, instead of letting the voters decide that?
It takes more to dominate a team sport than an individual sport. In an individual sport, if one guy is better than his peers he will win a lot of the time. In a team sport, a team can have the best player and still get beat. Jordan was not only a great player, but he made those around him play better as well. He was a leader.
There should be no debate. Cartman is the South Park franchise.
In other words, you are so sensitive that "happy holiday" upsets you, but you don't understand how other people might be sensitive about things too.
The most respectable person in history is humble, independent, adds to society, causes no evil, and has been crucial to our existence: the farmer.
What role does it not play? Everything in our lives is shaped by art. It affects who we are attracted to, and how we hook up with them. They shape our ideas of morality, politics and religion. Even technology is shaped by the concepts first originated in Science Fiction. I challenge anyone to name an aspect of human society that has not been shaped by art.
You and your three friends who have all put in hundreds of hours into Guitar Hero could be jamming out right now instead. Why learn a virtual skill at the expense of learning an actual one?
There are two types of competitions, those with rules and those without rules. If the competition has no rules, there can be no cheating.
However, if the competition has rules, the purpose of the competition is to see who can win by those rules.
If I use a trick deck to beat the world's greatest poker players, does that make me the world's best poker player? No, I pretty much suck at poker.
Freedom is nice, but we depend on good roads, monetary regulations, police protection, and all of the laws of government that keep our society together. Under anarchy you are free, but when you are starving to death because someone bigger than you took your house and stole all your crops, well freedom is not going to be much consolation at that point.
