“You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car,”
“You can’t just say that there’s no pollution as a result of riding a bicycle.”
People who bike do not pay for roads when they ride.
the amount of money that would end up going to bike lanes is higher than the amount raised by the proposed bike tax.
The purpose of the right to bear arms is to democratize power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Freedom consists of the distribution of power and despotism consists of the concentration of power. Power concentrated in the hands of the few will create a world which we will not want. If guns are broadly distributed so that everybody would have their own gun — then if somebody did try to do something really terrible, then the collective will of others could overcome that bad actor.The same can be said for companies that want to control our food supply (Monsanto) or given exclusive rights to genetic engineering, etc.
Let's use a computer as an analogy for the human brain.
There are many different types of brains, just like there are many different types of computers. You have PCs, Macs, tablets/phones, tiny, wearable, computing devices, calculators, super computers, etc. So a human brain can be a supercomputer and a dog's brain can be a calculator.
Now, these computers all need an operating system, like Windows, OS-X, IOS, Android, Linux, Etc. The operating system can represent sentience.
But in order for computers to do useful stuff, they need aps, like Microsoft Word, Photoshop, VLC, etc. This can be human knowledge and reason.
Ok. Ready? Here we go.
We are expected to believe that a super computer evolved, with Linux installed and a number of aps? That's Quite a lot to happen all by itself. Can we reasonably expect to find a similar machine on some distant planet, half burried in sand? I mean, don't you find that just as incredible as what religion teaches?
If there's one thing politicians rely on, is you forgetting the last scam they tried to put on the American people. I remember clearly the 'Next Ice Age' is coming scare in the '70's. Now, I can see it for what it was then and what the whole global warming issue is now.
Here is a couple of articles from the '70's of the coming 'Ice Age' and how man is the evil behind it.
Here is one from....should I say?....ok..I will....Time Magazine in 1974
Not to be outdone by Time magazine, here is an article from 'Newsweek' in 1975;
A smart person once said, "No, it's not morally wrong to neuter stupid people. Every organization I can think of advises you to do just that. The unwanted, uncared for population is so out of hand that we cannot afford not to neuter as a precaution against more unwanted idiots."
Scientists provided evidence for global warming (logic) and called for drastic CO2 emission cuts (lower carbon footprint). So far, little (if anything) has been done.In this debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Physical_visual_proof_of_evolution science is losing to religion.Are science and logic losing the fight to win supporters?
What is wrong with God being responsible for Evolution?
At first I thought this would be a debate for only Theists, but I realize that it can also pertain to Atheists. We keep having debates about whether Evolution is correct, but why is there so much opposition? What is so weird about God using Evolution to create all life? For Atheists, is there something about Evolution that would not allow God to be responsible for it? I just don't know why it has become God vs. Evolution when everything else we have discovered is the way God does it.
Traditional conservatives want to protect their jobs, toys and money. Traditional liberals want to protect the planet, the animals, the children, and the entitlement coulture that empowers them to take away from the traditional conservatives in order to save all those things ;)
Here is the ultimate resource that goes over the subject and a variety of relevant philosophies. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
I will summarize everything for you, in case you are too lazy to read all that (keep in mind the original source will be a lot more detailed, and misunderstanding of mine may have taken place, if any misunderstandings here have taken place, please correct me).
Morality - What is right or wrong, what we ought to do, and what we ought not to do.
Non-cogntiivism: Morality isn't truth apt, neither in any substantiation is it true or false. Morality rather, is expressions of what we approve of and disapprove of, and desires.
Cognitivism: the rejection of non-cognitivism, where morality is truth apt, and can be substantiated as true of false.
Two negative constitutive non-cognitivist claims - Two negative theses comprise the central non-cognitivist claims.
- semantic non-factualism: The claim that moral sentences do not express propositions that are qualified to be truth apt.
- psychological non-cognitivism: The claim that the state of mind when stating a moral sentence are not cognitive (the mental state itself whether the individual realizes it is not thinking of morality as a truth apt.
Subjective cognitivism (this is something I actually just learned) - that subjective morality does not equivacate to non-cognitivism, it is apparently possible to hold morality as truth apt, but yet subjective. In other words, if morality is subjective, whatever is morally TRUE is dependent on you.
emotivism - moral statements express emotions and feelings of something.
prescriptivism/universal prescriptivism - moral statements are analogous to moods, and apply to everyone.
quasi-realism - Moral statements being truth apt, there is reasoning to act as though morality is truth apt.
expressivim - moral statements simply express our approval and disapproval, immoral means "Boooo!!!" while moral means "Hurrraaahhh!!!"
Norm-expressivism/plan-expressivism - Moral judgements although non-cognitive can be judged on how rational they are. To call a moral judgement ration is acception of a system of norms that accept the moral judgement, to call a moral judgement irrational is to accept a system of norms that forbid it.
Borderline cases/hybrid theories
Hermenuetic fictionism - The langauge of morality does express truth apt, which aligns with error theory (the theory that our use of moral language is in error), however fictionalists disagree with error theorists, do not believe the propositions content, and the moral statement is used fictively.
Hybrid-expressivism - A combination of expressivism while holding the position that morality is non-cognitive with cognitive features. This can form in a lot of different ways.
Embedding problem - if morality is not truth apt then the lines of logic below cannot be true
P1: Torturing the cat is bad, thus getting your little brother to torture the cat is bad.
P2: torturing the cat is bad.
the line of logic is thought to be alluding to morality being truth based.
Logic of attitudes - that moral statements have logical relations to each other, thus alluding to moral truth apt.
Blackburns solution to this is that although morality isn't truth apt, our moral statements must make logical sense in relation to each other, otherwise we have clashing attitudes within our own mental state.
P1: torturing the cat is bad, thus getting your little brother to torture the cat is also bad
p2: torturing the cat is bad.
According to Blackburn's logic, if one feels that torturing the cat is bad, it would be inconsistent of them, and contradictory of their own attitudes to believe that getting your little brother to torture your cat is also bad.
In other words, in order for one to hold a disaproving attitude of torturing of the cat, one must also disaprove of someone else torturing the cat.
Minimalism - minimalism or deflationism about truth aptness can allow non-cognitivists to bypass the embedding problem and logical attitudes of morality.
piggybacking on the descriptive content in a hybrid theory - hybrid theorists explain the logical attitudes problem with claiming that moral judgements are not truth apt with their being "descriptive meaning" allows logical attitudes as their is belief content in moral statements that are "co-equal".
Wishful thinking objection - (I do not quite understand what this is saying, so if you have the capacity to explain please let me know.)
**not everything from the source has been included, if you want to analyze other information, please do refer to the source**
Global Warming provides an opportunity to those who can capitalize on it. Once coastal cities are under water, the economy will be stimulated by a new surge in construction. Drought areas will not need desalination plants if we move flood water to where it is needed. As the ice sheets melt, new land will be available for human habitation. Archaeologists will be able to dig in places that were once covered by ice. Ancient organism, reanimated by the receding ice and warming atmosphere will keep biologists busy. In short, it will be a brave new world to play in with some new rules.The purpose of life is to keep busy while waiting to die.
Instead of complex life spontaneously evolving, why not a simpler analog clock?
Instead of complex life spontaneously evolving, why not a simpler analog clock?
An analog clock is a much simpler mechanism than a human being. Hell, let's not take a whole human being. Let's just take part of a human being. Like the brain or... a single cell capable of reproducing by splitting in half. If it took millions of years to produce a single cell organism at astronomical odds..., why not an analog clock? And analog clock is way simpler. The odds should have been better and it should have taken a lot less time to spontaneously evolve an analog clock.