Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 8 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 8 |
Debates: | 0 |
Quite the little temper tantrum. Boo-hoo the bad man made me cry, because he said the bollocks I spewed out was in fact bollocks, and not a brilliant insight.
The level of incoherency you demonstrate, is only matched by the absurdity of your conjecture. There was more rigor behind the platonic forms than this, and we know what happened to them.
Are you now going to 'imaginatively speculate' (aka pull out of your arse) on the origins of the universe for us. Perhaps it's like...I don't know 'water' right. Utter rubbish, try investing your time better or do some deeper thinking, or just read something.
And by the way fire creates heat as a by product, but heat is obviously not the same as fire. To attempt to confuse the 2 only demonstrates the extreme weakness of your position. Have a nice day.
This sort of intuitive reasoning by analogy is not useful nor productive. The boundaries between life and non life are being researched. Whilst that research is interesting and to some degree speculative, none of it involves looking at the role 'fire' played. Heat may be involved in the chemical processes, but fire would break the chemical bonds necessary to form the requisite molecules.
It amazes me that someone can think they can get a direct, unmediated perspective into the universe (in this case life in the universe), instead of knuckling down and producing some actual repeatable, testable results. How do you propose to test this conjecture? Is it to look at fire and go "oooh it looks like life", end of test! Don't expect anyone to be convinced. The earlier post was right, this IS absurd.
It would be good for any theist to define a God positively and properly. There is not really a case to answer if Theism is so poorly defined.
The god concept is so vague and malleable that as soon as you engage a theist in debate, they engage in special pleading to rescue their god and play hide a seek by equivocating with words like cause, universe, beginnings, morality, nature or whatever argument is invoked.
Then let's call it corruption or fraud and not greed.
I can agree that people should be protected from fraud. It is a non violent coersive force that distorts markets. However it is frequently well intentioned government meddling in the market that creates loopholes for corporates to exploit and thus create this corruption or fraud. Business is a fantastic institution when it has to compete in an open free market. Having said all of that, then I would still rather have crony capitalism than communism. Communists are the masters of corruption.
I never understood the point about Capitalism and greed. It seems to me that we are all 'greedy' in a sense to improve our situation. What is wrong with that. To quote Thomas Sowell:
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
In other words the people accusing Capitalists of greed, are themselves greedy. But worse they are greedy AND envious.
I think this is a Marxist myth. If you correlate economic freedom (thus capitalism) with wealth gap statistics. It is generally the case that the freeer economies have less wealth gap. It is also interesting to note that the wealth gap in former socialist countries adopting free market economics is reducing Russia, China and a host of Eastern European nations. Just go to North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba and see how the elite live compared to the masses.
Despite the ironic nature of your post. The only difference I can discern between Communism and Fascism is the sections of society they intern. Political opponents or races or both. Economically one is against private property (full stop), the other against the use of private property 'where it is not in the nationalistic interest'.
Capitalism is the moral system. It allows free people to enter in voluntaristic arrangements for their mutual benefit, allowing them to maximize their potential. Communism is the anti-thesis of this, asking individuals to surrender their labour, property and even their rationality to some abstract Collective. Rand describes this well when she asserts the superiority of the ethics of rational self-interest over altruism.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |