100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President did not comply with the War Powers Act when he ordered the April 14, 1986, attack on Libya. Urges the President to comply with such Act in the future. war powers act is not about 'blatant disregard' it is about consulting with congress before ordering military action which Reagan did not do when HE ordered air strikes over Libya either,,, he met with 'members' of congress,, as did OBama but he never got 'congressional approval' in the formal sense of the ambiguous term Well.. I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I changed my mind.. A little history.. In 1981 Libya launched an airstrike against US ships in international waters. An act of war? Possibly.. Again, in 1986 Libya launched surface to air missiles at our Jets flying over the same international waters.. An act of war? Possibly.. After this confrontation, Libya ordered retaliatory actions against US military bases in Europe. Libya actually declared war on the US.. A week after this the bomb went off in the Berlin disco killing a US soldier.. War Powers Act Section 2 (C) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ There is clearly a difference between the reasons Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombing Libya.. Reagan had clear authority to use the War Powers Act because of the Libyan attacks against US military personnel. there is no 'clear' record of Libya having declared a war against the US there was a SINGULAR terrorist assault at a nightclub for which Libya was ASSUMED responsible... the War Powers Act was not relevant when he sent the troops,,,, You're wrong! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe-6EsSqDb4&feature=player_embedded the right to defend the country does not apply other presidents have been wrong ,,,seems I am right then, until NOW, other presidents werent impeached until NOW, there was no clear legal precedent to conclude those actions were 'wrong' until NOW, it was apparently not an impeachable offense,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So I am a eugenicist becuase I think you should handle your own problems. I am going to ignore that becuase it has nothing to do with my position. I think its a bit of projection from the evolution thread, but whatever . . . In the OP, she had been assaulted by this guy. She should have armed herself, learned to use a firearm, AND continued to press charges. In that scenario you have a person taking personal responsibility for there actions, for there own safety, and to seek justice for ACTUAL harms committed against her person and her rights. In SOPA, I am also for personal responsibility. The person who owns the property, IP, copyrights is responsible for policing there own content, determining that the IP rights have been violated and then seek redress through the system by suing the person they allege is violating there copy rights. In both cases the opposition to my position wants someone else to be responsible. In the case of the stalker laws, its the government being responsible for protection from poeple who harrass you, threaten you, and generally wont leave you alone. In SOPA is it the IP holders who want the responsibility of policing rights violations to be on content sites and not themselves. The punishments are designed to be severe and as such would remove the desire for the content sites to engage in both legal, and illegal uses of copyrighted materials. Consistent through and through without any vague notions of "weight" of possible scenarios, whatever that means . . . you have still not made that clear. I am not anti law, I am pro simple clear law. Im not sure what survival of the fittest has to do with eugenics,,,so I Will skip past that one... I dont want to be responsible for someone elses actions or decisions which harm or lead to harming me or mine that is true I can be responsible for being vigilant and careful but I Also want a system that backs me up by prosecuting those who violate my ability to function without threat of harm,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1 Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation. #2 There are 5.6 million less jobs than there were when the last recession began back in late 2007. #3 The U.S. government says that the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by 17.9 million between 2000 and 2011. During the entire decade of the 1980s, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by only 1.7 million. #4 In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent. #5 In 2007, 73.2 percent of all young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 that were not enrolled in school had jobs. Today, that number has declined to 65 percent. #6 Back in the year 2000, more than 50 percent of all Americans teens had a job. This past summer, only 29.6% of all American teens had a job. #7 When Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million. #8 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000. #9 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs. #10 According to the Obama administration, about 20 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs back in the year 2000. Today, about 5 percent of all jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs. #11 Sadly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001. #12 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs. #13 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 28 times larger than it was back in 1990. #14 About twice as many new homes were sold in the United States in 1965 as are being sold today. #15 Home prices in the 4th quarter of 2011 were four percent lower than they were during the 4th quarter of 2010. Overall, U.S. home prices are 34 percent lower than they were back at the peak of the housing bubble. #16 The total value of household real estate in America has declined from $22.7 trillion in 2006 to $16.2 trillion today. #17 At the end of 2011, 22.8 percent of all homes in the United States with a mortgage were in negative equity. That would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. #18 Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago. #19 Total consumer debt in the United States has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971. #20 Since the beginning of 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by more than 90 percent. #21 The number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent since 2007. #22 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty. #23 In November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, 46.5 million Americans are on food stamps. #24 The U.S. dollar has lost 96.2 percent of its value since 1900. You can thank the Federal Reserve system for that. #25 In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita. Today, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita. #26 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government. #27 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income. #28 Federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010. #29 Medicare spending increased by 138 percent between 1999 and 2010. #30 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for 32 percent of all health care spending in America. Today, that figure is up to 45 percent and it is projected to surpass 50 percent very shortly. #31 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. #32 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent. #33 In 2004, the U.S. government had a budget deficit of a little over 412 billion dollars. This year, the U.S. government will run a budget deficit of over 1.3 trillion dollars. #34 In 2001, the U.S. national debt was less than 6 trillion dollars. Today, it is over 15 trillion dollars and it is increasing by about 150 million dollars every single hour. #35 The U.S. national debt is now more than 22 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president. things go up and down, it really depends on what range of years people choose to compare for instance I may have made 60000 in 2000 40000 in 2005 and make 50000 now,,, in 2012 i could compare now to the year 2000 and say its gotten worse, but I could compare it to 2005 and say its gotten better,,, it also depends on what crook is in the white house too... not so much matters more who is in congress... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We dealt with humans so we dealt with all human issues. There are many many human issues. Exactly. Employees cannot be discriminated against for their race or their gender or their religious beliefs and practices. If the public they come into contact with does not like them for their being black or gay or Christian, they can, if they like, ask to deal with someone else. But, the employee cannot be told they have to change themselves in these specific areas. Individually that is so, but when you represent the government you represent an entity for all humans, meaning that you have to be respectful of all which means representing or showing no favor to any. Religions do not respect each other so they cannot be considered benign. If religions did not have the "we are the right ones and all others are wrong" philosophy they would be able to coexist without conflict but they don't and if they did, it would basically end the appeal of the religion in giving it's member superiority and all the perks of being "right" and "condoned by god". One of the things I liked about Wicca was that it does recognize all religions as being equal. Too bad no one else's feels the same. a religion cant 'respect' anything people can be respectful or disrespectful regardless of religion and people who have religion deserve the same RESPECT to express how they identify themself as any other group does including people does not show bias or favor, EXCLUDING people does |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back on topic here. If you were a person who had been persecuted by a religious organization that happened to use a cross as their insignia and you entered a government building that had promised you that they were neutral on the religious issues and you were served by someone wearing a cross, you would not feel safe nor believe that this government really was unbiased. thats not true unless EVERYONE there was wearing a cross ,, on the contrary, if some were wearing crosses and some were wearing wiccan jewelry, and some were wearing no jewelry or accessories,etc,, it would indicate how UNBIASED that institution was just like I wouldnt feel there was racial bias if I saw a white person working as long as I Saw other races too when they explicitly FORBID a cross, that would imply to me a bias just like it would imply a bias if they explicitly FORBID blacks employment (or if I saw NO blacks there but did see other races) now, if there is simply a no accessories rule, thats not biased when you specificly zero in on one TYPE of accessory,, that is a bias |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now this seems to contradict itself And I don't remember seeing one cross as jewelry. Recognizable religious insignia probably makes a big difference here too. I knew some Wiccans at work who wore their talismans and stuff and had no issues because they were perceived as homedic health aids or something like that. then Spoiled Christians feel "persecuted" because they have been over stepping boundaries for a long time here. So they will have to feel that way until the proper balance is reached in this country. but then all rules are supposed to be equal for all??? You cannot work in one religious organization outwardly expressing and proselyting another religion and keep your job. which is what the first post I quote was doing as well...they just weren't Christian If someone on your job would file a complaint of your outward expression of religion, you would find that chances are it would become a rule that you couldn't wear it either. A judge would rule that no religious expression is more just and fair in the government. So if someone filed a complaint on the pagan symbol...then they wouldn't be allowed to wear it anymore...let's keep it fair and equal Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti so tricky to get people to understand the 'of prohibint gree exercise thereof' part, or the 'congress shall pass no law' individual employers are not congress, they can set pretty much the requirements they want UNLESS it conflicts with discrimination laws which protect things like religion, race, sexual preference,,,etc,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Obama National Anthem
|
|
Nah that doesn't fit with the dictator theme this dude has developed. I guess it could and he'd do it Putin style if he does win just like last time, wonder how many black panthers he'll have at the polls and dead people voting this time around??? not enough to make a difference, considering that occurs less than one percent of the time,,,lol and probably nowhere close to 9 million. approximately the number he won by in 2008.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1 Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation. #2 There are 5.6 million less jobs than there were when the last recession began back in late 2007. #3 The U.S. government says that the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by 17.9 million between 2000 and 2011. During the entire decade of the 1980s, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by only 1.7 million. #4 In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent. #5 In 2007, 73.2 percent of all young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 that were not enrolled in school had jobs. Today, that number has declined to 65 percent. #6 Back in the year 2000, more than 50 percent of all Americans teens had a job. This past summer, only 29.6% of all American teens had a job. #7 When Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million. #8 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000. #9 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs. #10 According to the Obama administration, about 20 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs back in the year 2000. Today, about 5 percent of all jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs. #11 Sadly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001. #12 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs. #13 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 28 times larger than it was back in 1990. #14 About twice as many new homes were sold in the United States in 1965 as are being sold today. #15 Home prices in the 4th quarter of 2011 were four percent lower than they were during the 4th quarter of 2010. Overall, U.S. home prices are 34 percent lower than they were back at the peak of the housing bubble. #16 The total value of household real estate in America has declined from $22.7 trillion in 2006 to $16.2 trillion today. #17 At the end of 2011, 22.8 percent of all homes in the United States with a mortgage were in negative equity. That would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. #18 Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago. #19 Total consumer debt in the United States has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971. #20 Since the beginning of 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by more than 90 percent. #21 The number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent since 2007. #22 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty. #23 In November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, 46.5 million Americans are on food stamps. #24 The U.S. dollar has lost 96.2 percent of its value since 1900. You can thank the Federal Reserve system for that. #25 In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita. Today, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita. #26 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government. #27 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income. #28 Federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010. #29 Medicare spending increased by 138 percent between 1999 and 2010. #30 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for 32 percent of all health care spending in America. Today, that figure is up to 45 percent and it is projected to surpass 50 percent very shortly. #31 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. #32 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent. #33 In 2004, the U.S. government had a budget deficit of a little over 412 billion dollars. This year, the U.S. government will run a budget deficit of over 1.3 trillion dollars. #34 In 2001, the U.S. national debt was less than 6 trillion dollars. Today, it is over 15 trillion dollars and it is increasing by about 150 million dollars every single hour. #35 The U.S. national debt is now more than 22 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president. things go up and down, it really depends on what range of years people choose to compare for instance I may have made 60000 in 2000 40000 in 2005 and make 50000 now,,, in 2012 i could compare now to the year 2000 and say its gotten worse, but I could compare it to 2005 and say its gotten better,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
using the bible as an excuse
|
|
I keep meeting folks who use the bible as an excuse for oppression. How does that happen? Crusades, Witch trials, Manifest Destiny, Slavery, and my personal fave: misogyny. All sorts of excuses made that people beleive the bible tells them this sort of behavior is handed down from God. Why do you think its so easy to use the bible for evil? personal and individual perception historical accounts, whether an american history book or a bible are perceived differently by each reader, some results that are seen as positive are seen as having a direct causal relation to the actions which lead to them so, any action leading to a 'good' result is seen as and justified as 'good' , although that is not the case and most christians I know dont make that sweeping generalized logic in their life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Obama National Anthem
|
|
haaaaaa
I think this is a more fitting anthem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY0tsKCB4lc Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We're on the move! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We've got the groove! There's been so many things thats held us down. But now it looks like things are finally comin' around. I know we've got, a long long way to go, and where we'll end up, I don't know. But we won't let nothin' hold us back, we're putting our selves together, we're polishing up our act! If you felt we've been held down before, I know you'll refuse to be held down anymore! Don't you let nothing, nothing, Stand in your way! I want ya'll to listen, listen, to every word I say, every word I say! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We're on the move! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We've got the groove! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We're on the move! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We've got the groove! I KNOW YOU KNOW SOMEONE THAT HAS A NEGATIVE VIBE AND IF YOUR TRYING TO MAKE IT THEY ONLY PUSH YOU ASIDE THEY REALLY DONT HAVE NO WHERE TO GO ASK THEM WHERE THEY'RE GOING, THEY DONT KNOW! But we won't let nothin' hold us back, we're gonna put our selves together, we're gonna polish up our act! And if you've ever been held down before, I know you'll refuse to be held down anymore! Don't you let nothing, nothing, Stand in your way! I want ya'll to listen, listen, to every word I say, every word I say! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We're on the move! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We've got the groove! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We're on the move! Ain't No Stoppin Us Now! We've got the groove! or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeGrgewqEXw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. The only purpose of it is thought control, oppression and striping people of their rights. My sentiments exactly. This makes me very sad. on this we agree, its all out war against 'christian' expression while everyone else is free to express who they 'feel' they are,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President did not comply with the War Powers Act when he ordered the April 14, 1986, attack on Libya. Urges the President to comply with such Act in the future. war powers act is not about 'blatant disregard' it is about consulting with congress before ordering military action which Reagan did not do when HE ordered air strikes over Libya either,,, he met with 'members' of congress,, as did OBama but he never got 'congressional approval' in the formal sense of the ambiguous term Well.. I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I changed my mind.. A little history.. In 1981 Libya launched an airstrike against US ships in international waters. An act of war? Possibly.. Again, in 1986 Libya launched surface to air missiles at our Jets flying over the same international waters.. An act of war? Possibly.. After this confrontation, Libya ordered retaliatory actions against US military bases in Europe. Libya actually declared war on the US.. A week after this the bomb went off in the Berlin disco killing a US soldier.. War Powers Act Section 2 (C) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ There is clearly a difference between the reasons Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombing Libya.. Reagan had clear authority to use the War Powers Act because of the Libyan attacks against US military personnel. there is no 'clear' record of Libya having declared a war against the US there was a SINGULAR terrorist assault at a nightclub for which Libya was ASSUMED responsible... the War Powers Act was not relevant when he sent the troops,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think if there is a uniform dress code all adhere to, that is fine. If the cross is singled out from other types of dress that 'represent' a religion, thats not so fine. The fact that in many places most people can wear just about any jewelry or clothing they want that isnt vulgar, and in other places employers are now forced to allow men to dress like women if thats their choice to express their 'sexual' identity, BUT christians cant wear anything remotely that expresses their 'religious' identity,,,, is scary,,, especially since I thought religion AND sexual orientation were protected classes in America,,,, well, this is happening in Britain, so your safe for the moment... true. they are big on preventive laws but usually consistent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think if there is a uniform dress code all adhere to, that is fine.
If the cross is singled out from other types of dress that 'represent' a religion, thats not so fine. The fact that in many places most people can wear just about any jewelry or clothing they want that isnt vulgar, and in other places employers are now forced to allow men to dress like women if thats their choice to express their 'sexual' identity, BUT christians cant wear anything remotely that expresses their 'religious' identity,,,, is scary,,, especially since I thought religion AND sexual orientation were protected classes in America,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is self esteem hereditary?
|
|
I think it is highly hereditary. May be somewhat uneven within a family's members,but if we compare two families on self esteem basis,I think we will always find that one family as a whole is standing on some different level of self esteem than the other family. I've seen that if a person is having a high self esteem then usually all of his family members hold high self esteem. What is your observation / opinion about this? How about you & your mom,dad & siblings? Do you think you all are at same level of self esteem? If yes,do you think it is genetically determined or family environment? I think human attributes are 10 percent nature and 90 percent nurture, except where hormones are involved I dont think self esteem is a hormonal issue, so I believe it is absorbed from ones initial environment and feedback |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
The thread is called Creation vs Evolution. That is comparing apples to oranges. Creation is a theory of how life was created. Evolution is a theory of how the complexity of life increased. Two totally different things. What's next, a thread called Volvo vs Chocolate Cake? Not quite so. Evolution explains changes in the world, such changes that the bible can not explain. Accepting the bible is a direct renouncing of observable facts. Accepting evolution is a direct renouncing of an unchanging world of biology. Therefore I say unto you, that while the two things are not equal, they are still mutually exclusive. This means each person has to make a choice. The choice is something like this: "Do I accept reality as I see it and risk eternal damnation in hell because of it, or "Do I accept Jesus as my Saviour and force my kid out of getting higher education due to his inability to pass biology exams?" Granted, these are practical considerations, not highfolutin' theoretical ones. The choice between Creation and Evolution, which to accept, has so far-reaching ramifications that even the Pope vacillates on the issue at times. It is not EASY to tell billions of followers you lead that 20,000,000 expert biologists are all crazy. Never learn, never forgive. The same tooth-and-nail battle was fought out whether the EArth is round or flat. The church won by force and torturing the scientists; and then some 600 years later the Church was made to issue an official apology, and admit in the last decade of the twentieth century that the earth is round, not flat. This was particularly painful to the Roman Catholics. You see, there is such a decree in Catholicism, that the Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, his revelations are directly channeled through him by god to the world. There were two such invocations of the papal infallibility, and the second came in 1499 by Pope Augustine the LLXCMCCIIX, that said, "Those who believe in the antipodes will die an eternal death in damnation." This sort of thing is also referred to as "Papal Bull". (I just made this up. Impressive isn't it.) there is a third option Do I accept reality as I see it and risk eternal damnation in hell because of it, or "Do I accept Jesus as my Saviour and force my kid out of getting higher education due to his inability to pass biology exams?" OR DO I Accept jesus as savior and explain to my child that God is the creator of the 'reality' man continues to try to understand and explain,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how could someone that doesnt know her say whether its a good idea or not
I think you are the only one that really knows the answer to that,,,,good luck |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Those two sides of the argument haven't been settled for thousands of years, so I bet we're not going to do it either. Brava, I love your posts. With regard to 'randomness' and 'causality' - I do want to point out that these arguments have gone on for thousands of years only because we, as a species, lacked a coherent and accurate understanding of the truth. I think within a few generations we will no longer be debating these points, and that all intelligent people with an interest in learning will easily come to the same conclusions. the problem with that is that new species are being discovered constantly,, so whatever conclusions we may come to about todays mysteries will be replaced with new mysteries,, and we will be no closer to truly explaining the complex and cooperative workings of the Universe and all the life within it,,, The fact that new species are being discovered is of no bearing whatsoever. That's like saying "you can never understand the physics behind playing billiards, because there will always be new combinations of ball positions". There are a few simple rules (the laws of motion) that explain the movements of balls on a pool table. It doesn't matter what position they are in, the rules are the same. Similarly, the continuing evolution of life follows rules. We are doing a great job of understanding those rules. Eventually our understanding will be so thorough and well established that intelligent people will no longer debate the basic principles, anymore than intelligent people debate whether F=ma works. [Insert idiotic straw man attack on F=ma by someone who confuses a more detailed, derived formula with a contradictory formula...] actually, there is a finite (but large) number of combinations for ball positions because there is a finite number of balls and a finite number of points on the table neither of those factors CONTINUE to increase, so they can be figured out and this 'Insert idiotic straw man attack on F=ma by someone who confuses a more detailed, derived formula with a contradictory formula...]' is certainly a humourously ironic point of view of this particular topic EMPHASIS : CONFUSES detailed with contradictory,,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Those two sides of the argument haven't been settled for thousands of years, so I bet we're not going to do it either. Brava, I love your posts. With regard to 'randomness' and 'causality' - I do want to point out that these arguments have gone on for thousands of years only because we, as a species, lacked a coherent and accurate understanding of the truth. I think within a few generations we will no longer be debating these points, and that all intelligent people with an interest in learning will easily come to the same conclusions. the problem with that is that new species are being discovered constantly,, so whatever conclusions we may come to about todays mysteries will be replaced with new mysteries,, and we will be no closer to truly explaining the complex and cooperative workings of the Universe and all the life within it,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
the death penalty
|
|
murderers, ok, let their housing be paid for by relatives/any interested parties. when that runs out,,,, let us call for euthanasia, which is better than they offered their victims,,,amen would the relatives also pay the salaries that prison employees earn? or construction workers who build prison, or the 'due process' that each citizen is afforded for it to be 'proven' they actually murdered someone in the first place? , why not adopt muslim law and cut of the hands of thieves as well? or castrate rapists? as a rape survivor, Its not the type of society Id want to live in |
|
|
|
|
Previous
