Conro's Waterfall
I'm living in "communal living" right now, part of the Berkeley Student Cooperatives. Houses have to pass fairly rigorous health and habitability inspections by both school, BSC, and city officials. We buy organic food collectively, share and cook it collectively. We do 5 hours of workshift a week, keeping the house up to shape. There's great house cohesion, everyone respects one another. Someone can be fined for being "uncooperative" and missing too many workshifts.
Communal living is very easy, in fact. It just depends on your lifestyle; I probably wouldn't be living in a cooperative if I had a family, or at least I wouldn't be living in a large cooperative. Perhaps sharing a backyard garden space with a few families in one neighborhood, but that's probably the maximum.
Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?
There's problems with both your second and third assertions. Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be necessitated.
Or, if you would like, we could attack the argument from a different angle.
Assuming there exists a creator, must there not also exist something to create the creator (after all, the first creator exists, and from there it follows your initial argument). And on and on the argument goes indefinitely.
There are much stronger arguments in favor of a creator; the existence theory is perhaps the most tenuous.
Have you heard of the vocal minority? Generally, it appears to me that there are small minorities of theists and atheists that like to argue to till they're blue in the face, but the vast majority of both sides are willing to let the other alone.
And really, that's all we should hope for; you have your beliefs, I have mine, and our mutual beliefs are of no concern to the other.
For sure. I mean, of course it would be better for people to actually go through the trouble of searching if a debate has already been created, but most people just stick to the homescreen. But you're right, it is good to have a fun "debate" to relieve the pressure and make the site less stuffy.
Truth. I don't usually participate in these kinds of debates, but she is being ridiculous. She was worried about this site turning into another formspring, but she's the one posting formspring questions as debates (What's your favorite color/scent?). Honestly, I couldn't care less about silas "leaving" (it's a website, and if you check his page, he was just on here 6 hours ago....doesn't sound like he's gone). I just care about people posting meaningful debates on here. And the occasional jokes by joe aren't so bad either ;)
In nerd terms, right brain is Captain Kirk, and left brain is Spock. We all know Kirk and Spock need each other to better themselves. Pure right and pure left aren't so good, but together, they help drive innovation, science, technology, policy, and everything else. (Also, right brains, the ones who act impulsively, seem to me to be the ones most likely to destroy the Earth in a nuclear holocaust, but that is neither here nor there).
In other words, yes, the human race is worth saving, even if that is a biased wish to remain alive. Sure, there are many corrupt and evil individuals, but collectively, it seems to me that the world tends to advance rather than retreat in progress, even if the timeline is slow.
It's inappropriate for a government institution to encourage, endorse, or support any specific religion. If they felt a need to show solidarity towards their Muslim neighbors, there would have been many other options rather than an explicit endorsement of Islam by the city.
"The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff."
Well, important to correct, it was a tariff, not a tax. Tariff's raise the duties on imports, which dissuades foreign companies from selling into the country. The tax is what is paid by the domestic citizens to the government. The tariff is paid by foreign investors. As such, tariff's are not meant to raise revenue directly, but rather foster industrial and agricultural production. (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/
"President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932."
Citing information without a historical context is dangerous. Indeed, he had raised taxes on the highest tier in America to 63%. However, previously he had slashed taxes (to the highest earners) from 73% to 24% just before the Great Depression. When his tax cut failed and an enormous deficit burdened the economy, Congress (not Hoover) then raised taxes to 63% (for the top earners).
Here's the entire episode:
"Prior to the start of the Great Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, proposed and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase in history.[48]. The Act increased taxes across the board, so that top earners were taxed at 63% on their net income. The 1932 Act also increased the tax on the net income of corporations from 12% to 13.75%."
It would be improper to claim that Hoover, who believed in minimal (if any) government interference with the economy (at least until close to the end of his presidency), is comparable to the current President, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader.
Trickle-down economics never really worked. "Reaganomics" caused the federal deficit to almost triple and the Bush tax cuts helped spur on the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Why one refuses to learn from history is beyond me.
(P.S. A good article to read on supply-side economics: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/
Thinkgeek is (one of) the best websites on teh interwebz.
I'm only on this side because you made it impossible to disagree (or agree for that matter) without creating a paradox. If I disagree, I have agreed. Therefore, the only option is to agree, although that directly violates what I'm agreeing to. Well done, good sir. I applaud your paradoxes.
This was exactly my thought as I read the prompt. I would much rather live in a society where science is not bound by the regulations of an oppressive (or repressive) religious majority. The other day, in fact, I was thinking if I became a billionaire, I would buy several islands and start a society somewhat like this. Although, it could be a little difficult to declare it sovereign.
I would call that the "American nature" or "Capitalist nature". I don't think it's accurate to give that nature to all humanity. After all, some cultures value community work or sharing more highly than others. It doesn't have to be money that is the carrot, just compensation.
It probably won't happen, but I wouldn't rule it out. But it says it's 250 lbs. I'll wait until it gets maybe a little bit lighter. I also wouldn't trust the masses with them: they're terrible drivers, let alone 3D pilots. After all, you don't see everyone having their own personal satellites.
