Aperson
-
Posts
276 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Aperson
-
-
Soback:
I'd recommend Canada as there's like no differance between the U.S.' (or lack there of) culture and Canada's (or lack there of) culture.
Also, as long as you accept that Captilism isn't perfect and that Socilism is not completly bad I have no problem with your opinion
-
From my understanding of the "Fundementalist Movement" (that is, people taking literal interpratations of their holy book and then filtering, or even ignoring, scientific knowledge through that) is mostly concentrated in the U.S. and Middle East, with a lesser effect in Asia and Europe being pretty much immune (I am unaware of the situation in South America, Africa or Canada).
So, hopefully there isn't going to be another dark age and said unaffected region would shorten the length of it if there is one.
-
quote:Originally posted by Prez:Intelligent design, however, is every bit as much as a legitimate theory as utter random chaos. Should it be taught in schools? Probably not. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence to support it, and it cannot be outright disproven, but it is far to controversial and offensive to some people, and school is an institution of learning, not a forum for endless debate.
Problem is, supporters of ID have never had a peer-reviewed scientific paper published and until then it is no where close to being considered a "legitimate theory" (unless you feel that its perfectly ok for it to completly bypass the whole scietific procedure that has been set-up).
-
Nomad:
You misinterpeted on how humans are creative; We're creative at putting a new spin on orignal things.
Prez: Jesh, its like your implying the Easter Bunny dosn't exsit or something.
-
quote:Originally posted by Prez:Well, I'm with you then, because I believe evolution is a viable scientific theory as well. My theory is that intelligent design AND evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.What if mankind, and indeed all life, were designed to evolve? Just a thought.
Eh? Most people don't seem to realise that evolution only states how living things became the way they are, not how life started.
-
The original post? Definatly. (As is that whole site as far as I can tell)
-
Forgot about the disease thing. Makes sence then.
-
Kinda moot since he can't get elected again anyways.
-
quote:Originally posted by Prez:Science has gone down the road of elitism; that is to say, scientists are considered 'impeachable sources' and become very threatened when their collectively held belief system is in any way threatened by something so "silly" as religion. What I find amusing is that when science makes a guess to fill in the gaps, it is called a 'theory'. But when religion fills in those empty spaces for some people, it is called wishful or primitive thinking. Why is science viewed any different in this regard?
I have a feeling that (as with most things) the elitist scientists are the vocal minority.
If its just a guess it should be called a hypothesis (I think).
quote:Originally posted by Prez:The biggest myth in my opinion when discussing science and religion is that intellect is somehow inversely proportional to adherence to religious beliefs and principles. From a vast amount of personal experience coupled with an extensive study into the personal lives of several key scientific historical minds has proven quite the contrary.Meh, the only time that really happens is one a person holds onto a belief even against directly observed effects. Otherwise the other people are being idjits.
-
Hmm, can't ID be disproven by using computer simulations or watching bateria(or some other animal) for a really long time or create life and then watch it (takes a long time, may not be possible and if it is, we're not quite to that technological level). Please Note: The Theory of Evolution only states that complex life can (and did) arise by itself, after the start of life.
Granted, if ID supporters want to actually try and make a theory, they need to work a bit harder.
[ 10-25-2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Aperson ]
-
Or they could just not burn the bodies so they don't anger any muslisms that don't yet hate America/arn't yet thinking about joining the terrorist factions.
-
Humans are turning to evolution based programs to help solve engineering and other technological problems.
Biggest problem with ID is "who created the creators?" question.
Also, the Bible, Koren are books created by people. I can write one, you can write one, that does not make them undeniable fact. Of course, as always, there is probably some truth to them, just don't be terribly surprised if it dosn't happen to be the truth you want.
Jaguar: I have a feeling you'll have to repeat that several more times.
-
First: Science is a philosphy on how to find solutions to problems or awnser questions.
Personnaly, I'm the exact opposite of you. I find it more likely that some random occuarance allowed us to be rather than some powerful being (Of course there is always the anthropic principle). Not that I am saying that we couldn't be created by some being(s) but that somewhere down the line one of those beings were created by "chance", in which case occam's razor steps in and we're then ones who were lucky (or it will unless other facts arise).
Yes science and religion need not contradict each other, but, unfortunatly, religion has had a bad track record on denying facts that don't fit with their belief system (happened in the middle ages with the major Christain faction and is currently happening now with some Islamic states).
If you care, ID in a nutshell is the "theory" (note quotation marks) that life on earth is too complex to exsist without some intelligent being to have had a large infulence on it (which brings up more problems than it solves).
Now hopefully we can have a flame-free discussion.
-
-
quote:Originally posted by Jaguar:THis is getting insane, and GW had better get his collective crap together pretty soon, or his entire base is gonna walk.
Since a person in the United States can't serve more than two terms as president, dosn't that mean they have less incentive to care about their voter base. Or is there another reason the president needs a voting base, or are you refering to the Republican party.
-
quote:Originally posted by Prez:Sorry, I didn't realize. Then it's pretty shameful. And I thought he was conservative...
He is... except when it comes to money.
-
Yes, the title was slightly misleading. It should have said "Sen. Edward Kennedy Tried Help Rescue Fishermen" (the boat length and rough waters part is unnecessary for the title in my opinion). However it dosn't specify if he alerted the authorities (and this would be important in that, if he did, they might have died otherwise).
On a related note, what the heck does this thread title have to do with the news article.
-
quote:Originally posted by Grizzle:Remo, I don't think they are government donations.
You sure? The link Judge gave has "Goverment donors" over the amount he quoted.
Interesting enough the US contribution to UNICEF is mostly goveremnt money with a smaller amount from the private sector. While Japan and many European countries primary giving donations from the private sector.
(All that recieved from pages 47 and 52-53 of the 2004 annual report and deductions were done with good amounts of eyeballing)
-
Soback's: Second to last post:
Yes and those jobs are still needed even if they don't help the economy. Although, it would be interesting on how well the goverment funded advertisments work(or don't as the case may be).
And I'm still in highschool, but I probably won't take econmics (it isn't a required credit unless they snuck it in under a different name) as there are other classes that I want to take.
On Grizzel's Comments:
Basicly the more wealthy among as are getting a larger tax break (6% of 50% is > 6% of 40% for example). But yeah, the "Tax Breaks for the Rich" is rather misleading (but don't pretend the Democrats are the only party that uses similar tactics).
On The Fish:
Since I should at least say something pertaining to the original topic: At least its pretty!
-
quote:Originally posted by Soback:Aperson.First: The way taxes inherently are, has ZERO meaning. The way taxes ARE RIGHT NOW, is everything. I don't care how you are supposed to be taxed. I care how I AM TAXED right now. And like I said, working 12 hours instead of 8, you are supposed to be taking 8 hours pay plus overtime, meaning at least 150% MORE than just 8 hours of work would make you. The way it is set up now, you take LESS than that, because the overtime incurs a higher rate. Why should I work TIMES AND A HALF more than someone else, yet take home LESS than times and half? Not penalizing? I don't think so. I am not even starting on how much you get taxed on your other incomes, investments, and if you make over 100,000.
As I said, a flat income tax (among other things) would probably be better .
quote:Originally posted by Soback:Second: Whats wrong with a person getting a head start? Like I said, if he is rich, he SPENDS his money, or owns bussinesses, invests, ect... THAT CREATES WEALTH, IN RETURN CREATING JOBS. Which leads me to a third point.Nothing, just pointing out what Wolfheart might have meant (which I probably shouldn't be doing).
quote:Originally posted by Soback:Third: The "jobs" that government creates, waste wealth. Those "jobs" CAN NOT sustain themselfs, and rely on influx of our taxes to support them. Government DOES NOT create wealth, it squanders it. Therefore, it DOES NOT create sustainable jobs. Bussinesses DO. They operate for profit. Hire people, that EARN their paychecks, and in return the company expands, grows and hires more people. Do you understand the difference? A perfect example is a communist Russia. Their bussinesses, production, inventions, all went down hill when all became nationalized, and people LOST their jobs, became poorer, and living conditions WORSENED. That's the kind of "jobs" the government creates. So you taxing the bussinesses and claiming that money will go towards job creation is a ludicrous concept. Give that money back to bussinesses and they will create 5 times the ammount of jobs the government would.Those jobs are still needed, unless you want to have a "no-goverment" goverment system.
And I think everyone can agree that the USSR design plan failed (although it certainly helped the space race!).
On a slightly unrelated note, I find it amusing how people say a figure as if it was a proven fact.
-
quote:Originally posted by Soback:Taxes ARE a penalty, when someone has to pay more just because he makes more. I personaly know people who work for 9 or 10 months and then STOP working, because if they continue, then their taxes will sky rocket, and they would end up paying so much more and bring home less than if they would have just worked for 9 month and took 3 months off. Another thing, overtime, it gets taxed MORE than regular pay. WHY? Why should I pay a HIGHER RATE if I work 12 hours a day as opposed to 8? You telling me that it's not penalizing to be working more, applying yourself, producing, and then be punished with a higher tax rate for it and bring home just barely more than a guy who worked 8 hours?[/QB]
Taxes are not inheritly a penelty to rich people. The way they are currently implemented in most countries it works that way, but in its most basic form taxes are not by default a penelty to higher income earners.
In any event, a flat tax on income would probably be better, if the only reason is to stop people's heads exploading on tax day.
quote:Originally posted by Soback:Second: Don't know what you mean by that athlete starting a mile ahead. BUT, If I have some skill, knowledge or something to offer, then I have value. If I collect wellfare, medicare, food stamps, and depend on others to support my life, I DO NOT have value. Those people are a strain on the society, they are leeches, and looters. They will only vote for the guy who promisses them more looted $, not the guy who will make it easier to establish bussinesses creating jobs. Also, the VALUE of the rich people, is that they SPEND their money, and when that happens, they don't spend a couple of hundred, they spend dozens of thousands, providing jobs for the rest of us. The value of the rich people, is that they OWN bussinesses that provide jobs for the rest of us. A bum on the corner, has ZERO value.[/QB]By "a mile ahead" Wolfheart was probably refering to people who's parents earned alot of money, but I could be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Soback:Third: you posted "Those people should be tought to catch fish(those money should be used to create more jobs and provide better education)."Who creates jobs? Government or private enterprise? Who makes the economy run? Government or private enterprise? Who pays taxes? Government or private enterprise? Let me tell you. Government only WASTES money not saves and invests it, government only collects taxes and spends taxes, not pays them. Government is a disorganized, wastefull, pathetic, overblown, incompetent organization, that is bad at EVERYTHING, starting at DMV and social services, and ending with military and politicians. Bussinesses create jobs, create new products, do research, invent new things, save and invest, and pay taxes, NOT government. When you artificially impose road blocks on enterpenuers, then there's less progress, less bussinesses opening up, less jobs being created. The rich are the ones who invest money, spend it, and open huge bussinesses that hire thousands of workers. Enterpenuers are the ones who invest their millions in a guy coming to them with nothing but 30 pages of a report and his idea, asking to be invested in. And when a regular guy opens up his own bussiness, he automatically is labeled rich by the socialists and penalized from the start for getting ahead, hampering him, and hurting the economy, jobs and progress at the same time. [/QB]Firstly, goverment creates jobs (Military forces, police, teachers etc.). Secondly, if you use some money for job training instead of giving a person a free lunch for life it means that you increase the persons chances of becoming a productive citizen. This is a good thing, in my books at least.
$iLk: I think you are overy pessimistic about how long America will last. In any event it probably won't remain the only Superpower forever.
-
Blah, terrorism will probably exsit until every last human being on this planet is dead, which is certainly not impossible. But maybe I'm just overly pessimistic.
-
Goverment wasting money and saying they weren't going to? Should we be surprised?
-
So the states want to tax physical items. Makes complete sence to me. However, Soback's example had to do with software, there is a difference (or at least, my goverment seems to think so).
What Alex said...
in Politics, Religion & Legal etc
Posted
Eh? Just sounds like fear mongering.