Kite626's Waterfall
It's a con in my opinion. It's a fear tactic that has way too many disadvantages. Shooting radiation particles into the stratosphere for a display of fear..? That shortens the life expectancy of the human race as a whole. We could have simply manipulated them. We could have engineered fake atom bombs, and give them to them as an act of peace. If they try to use them (knowing the intent,) then blow them up. It's a win, win, possibly fool them into trust, or see if they are truly volatile.
You were right to quote that, but your following conclusion isn't concrete due to it. True, no compromise would end the conflict. Yes victory is a definitely an achievement to those who take initiative. That doesn't mean there was only one solution, it also doesn't indicate whether or not a greater victory was about. "When the predator corners the prey, sometimes the prey bites back." America's logic was to avoid that bite and bomb them in the corner. Why not get them into the corner, and maintain them within it.
Well sure you avoided blood shed, but just that one demonstration is enough to change the world. You would risk permanently damaging the stratosphere? Sure this move gained control through fear, but fear wont stop the world from entering an unnatural ice age.
Oh, good! But on a side note, keep up the new generation of education. Your students are lucky, this in my opinion is the best was to truly learn and grasp an idea. I'm impressed that you took a step beyond the text book. Keep up the good work!
Oh i'm sorry, i'm just use to you trolling my posts. Well honestly i agree with you but i think that's one of the many ways it could end. First to happen, my idea. I think my idea will be the first step, than the final to be many a thing such as an epidemic.
That's coming from the account, named: "hitler..?" The irony lol, in all honesty i didn't think it was all that depressing just a hypothetical thought. It's kind of hard to debate, "happy" topics. Not everyone will feel all one emotion on a topic.
......? Isn't that just them giving people free food with a side of guide lines to better health..? That's like asking if tobacco companies should pay billions to help with cancer and dental care. Why should they suffer the consequences for supplying a consensual demand.
Most people who commit sexual acts typically tend to have a psychopathic mentality. I'm pretty sure 70% have it, those who commit this desire. Sense they don't have emotional cognition. It is very likely that those who were mentally stable before they delved in did become influenced. On the other hand the majority of those who have a likelihood to do such a thing (psychopaths.) would now have the means to feed that desire with porn. For your question, technically it does cause a higher likelihood. The big picture that should be looked at, which does more harm; not having for those who have the desire, or to have it to feed and tame most offenders cravings.
Anything is contemplatively possible. But it soon becomes implausible once putting those thoughts into act. There is always a possible way. Although that changes once you realize even if it was possible, the action that it requires could be impossible. Yes, i think time travel is possible. I just don't think it's possible for us to use, find, and or create what ever the method is.
Without imagination there is no knowledge. When human civilization began, so did knowledge along side it. I don't see how they could have procured knowledge then without imagining something than testing it. Imagination is the foundation, without it our knowledge would collapse.
Your statement is flawed, it's based on the premise on thinking it was in fact japan who attacked the harbor. (which is a completely irrelevant debate to the atomic bomb.) The atomic bomb is one of the worlds biggest mistake ever. It's just like when guns were introduced, those who had the mass quantity of artillery held more, "power." Well this new falsified "power," is the power that ends as a whole. I'd much rather appear weak, than to risk the outcome of, "M.A.D." I Agree with you though that it was the end of the beginning. The only thing now though, is that we will inevitably procure something more deadly and reincarnate the next ended beginning. The end in the world. It's a ripple affect, the pebble is power. The first ripple being Spears, bows, arrows, etc. Then to swords, then to guns, and so on. We need to slow our power hungry roll, before we reach that last ripple. (Leave them alone.)
-----SORRY IF I WASN'T SUPPOSE TO INPUT ON A CLASS DEBATE, i was interested-------
That's a contradictory statement. If to save the life of a polar bear, and denying the natural cause of death is selfish. That also must indicate that eating animals for food is as selfish. They die from an unnatural death. I also don't understand how it can be selfish when we're not polar bears. It still makes no sense to say self-serving. It creates contradictory towards your statement yet again, isn't the eating of an animal self serving of ones self as well?
It's probably caused by the obvious reason of population, and competitiveness. They grow up competing whether it's a gang war, or who makes more money. In return this makes them more out spoken. They want to benefit themselves because they desire too choose.
The greatest division in mankind, is economical slavery from debt. The puppeteer behind the whip towards society would be the major banking industries. Produced and originated by people such as Rockefeller, etc. Money, is in fact enslavement. Money is created through debt, for it is loaned. Once distributed it creates more promises on repayment. No debt = No value within money. Once this debt is created, a society will be created as well. We form industries, jobs and more, therefore economical enslavement is created. Once these foundations are in place society lives through it. "There is two ways to conquer the world. One by sword, the other debt."
In a debate aspect i would say; what is randomness. All statements or ideals inquired and expressed to another is random. It may not seem that way in an individual mind set. Although any conversation is brought up through someones thought, to the other it's random. In an wtf aspect, it's highly impressive. He's not hitting is legs with one another, that takes a lot of coordination o.O!
Death is highly beneficial. Although, i do disagree with your reasoning. Even if it was to decrease the population of lower i.q humans, there will always be a balance. "Good," "evil," etc. If we were to lose those with lower mentalities someone else would just fill their role in this life. I think death is highly great, do to the fact we're already highly overpopulated. Without death this world would be more chaotic then it already is. This is also why i think Hitler was beneficial towards society.
What exactly would be a beneficial solution? Any path you decide to take to solve a problem will always be a journey, but the journey itself is irrelevant. The solutions you receive from any journey will always have a different solution from one another. Who's to know which way is best, but in my opinion, as long as you move forward and survive day to day then all else is irrelevant you succeeded just by moving forward into the next day.
Wrong, you have the most potential for learning growing up. Older people have already reached their peek of how far they can go on most things. Also humans adapt for survival, the young generation adapts to the thinking style of the old and realizes why they do the things they do, and than we choose ours. I think young people are more intellectual.
It's quite wise of you to acknowledge bias upon your want. Actually it's not about thinking what should or shouldn't; we are living and we are with a head placed upon your shoulders, i don't find it to be illegal to sleep. Just avoid becoming nocturnal like me.
The question doesn't ask what type of god is it, nor did it ask his abilities it simply asked whether or not he created atheists. It doesn't bother me i find it odd that you don't realize i answered a question i didn't feel like stating my own beliefs while you on the other hand dispute the flaws of why my opinion isn't concrete due to the fact of me not having substantial evidence of what kind he is and what he can do. If i was to go into that type of depth i would merely say he is a god who created life and let it play out on it's own.
That his highly unlogical, that statement you have established nothing, him having an unlimited amount of powers means that it could be a probability that you yourself isn't typing right now it's him forcing you to do so, and you walking isn't truly you it's him controlling your nervous system. Rather disputing my opinion of the question why not answer the question for yourself? So riahlize, Did god create atheists?
I don't know i truly know nothing only mere assumption, but if i was to enter the debate with the thought of him not creating humans i would have just said no god didn't create atheists due to the fact that he didn't create humans. The question "Did god create atheists," implicates that he created humans why ask a question about humanitie's creations if you think god didn't create humans, the asker would have immediately known that he didn't create atheism i'm basing my response upon the question not my beliefs. I have no need of using bias oppinions to answer a question someone has with a different idealistic mind.
Let's say there is a god, even then he didn't create atheism he may have created humans, but humans having their own minds have made the decision to form an idealistic thought that their is no god. That's like saying god created grills, or that he created pills. so no...
