Casper3912's Waterfall
Can I haz friend?
From thee other side I see, post modernizt generator tricked me? blashpemy! I saw it first I swear, let ye be square!
Hexs and vexes be cast on thee, the matrix be calling me to sleep! Good night fair lady good night fair laid, o my god there goes your head, 17 centry where be fance, I think it might be wrong but could be so right, revolution be soon or later, already gone? Grab the leftovers, yum yum in my tum, I rather did like your mum, rather odd her and her bum, but I suppose its all well and done.
I hearby dubed thee scrutom .
Penguins love scrutoms.
Or is it Pneses, jihnnoes, ah perhaps its just simply fish eggs.
Did you have your pancakes today?
Its bullshit that the study showed that when liberals were distracted and they gave answers more similar to conservatives, suggesting that liberals put more thought into their answers and changed their initial replies after consideration and that multiple studies also show this? Its called reading the link, and Google, if you want to choose to be ignorant and not present any type of argument, or hint of one, then what would a penguin do?
Really? Thats what you call "homophobia", your not gay are you?
Another study showing that left leaning people use more of their brains.
The difference / and the division sign are equivalent, its just that / is often used incorrectly(even by math majors it seems), both denote fractions, / is just typically used where everything on the right hand side is the denominator, but to not be lazy you should put it all in parentheses.
Its wrong, the difference / and the division sign are equivalent, its just that / is often used incorrectly(even by math majors it seems), both denote fractions, / is just typically used where everything on the right hand side is the denominator, but to not be lazy you should put it all in parentheses.
'÷' is the same as / isn't it? Wolfram alpha doesn't treat the two symbols differently
'÷' is the same as / isn't it? Wolfram alpha doesn't treat the two symbols differently
Division and multiplication have the same priority, and when operations have the same priority the one on the left is conducted first, so its 6/2(3) = 3*3.
In order for that to be the case it would of needed to of been 6/(2(1+2))
Division and multiplication have the same priority, and when operations have the same priority the one on the left is conducted first, so its 6/2(3) = 3*3.
"Given the greenhouse emissions we've already produced, the authors also conclude that we're certain to exceed the warmest decades of the past sometime this century. [b]The only scenario that would keep us from doing so is if we froze emissions around a decade ago.[/b] "
At least you seem reasonable with the greenhouse gasses. Although if you admit to these feedback mechanisms then why not admit that humans, through a small change could cause a drastic one?
Your a delusional idiot, the paper is very clear. Read it rather than interject what you want to read.
Perhaps it has to do with the USA backed coup against him after he was democratically elected?
Simply not true, stop being a tool and learn something outside of the narrative you've been indoctrinated with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Some of those are simply terrible, and easily informs me of the creators great ignorance and prejudiced, others are pretty spot on.
Rape whistles are ridiculous.
The idea that something like seeds can be seen as an industry is in and of itself a problem, the thought that it can be monopolized is outrageous. Seeds are essential to the well being of man, and monopolizing the seed industry is akin to monopolizing the water industry, or the air industry. It would make all of men far too dependent on one entity.
No their not, their propaganda. mainly for conservative and anti-secularists.
sure, but common religious holidays are not just religious holidays,for many they are also just holidays.
Further more if the process of determining goverment recognized holidays isn't biased,then the state maintains separation.
It actually does specify which and who's god. it certainly isn't the god of the atheists, or of any polytheistic faith. it also imposes that god is trustworthy, so misotheistic faiths are out. etc. Those few words are actually very restrictive when it comes to what type of religious belief is being endorsed, and that is really the problem, that a religious belief is being endorsed by the government.
Self-selected days would be nice, however if 90% of your work force has the right to a certain number of days off, your not necessarily going to be operational if 70% decided all to take the same day off. A factory may not be able to run with only 30% of it's labor force, and if so the decision by a majority to take some day off, is a decision for everyone to take that day off.
Is there any way such a thing could be considered religiously neutral?
Any holiday which has a significant number of employees which would like to celebrate it will likely be lobbied to have off. So long as the process of determining which days are days off isn't one which favors one or all religion, or which is against one or all but is religiously neutral, then I don't see the problem. Secularism doesn't mean holidays are ignored, only that the government isn't bias towards one set of religious beliefs or another.
did Joe make a serious debate?
love can be many things, but a relationship takes more than emotion, passionate or other wise. communication, trust, etc are necessary for romantic love to be healthy and for a relationship to be worth while. The paradigm many are raised with is that love is enough, you find your other half, get passionate and crazy, and wala paradise. However, many find that the crazy drives the other away.
I actually find it clever commentary on why we as a society are not more outspoken about the politics of both parties shifting to the right. Objectively, Obama is more like what used to of been called a moderate republican.
It seems we as a society is more concerned with the form of politics, than it's substance.
1st: "assault rifle" is a buzz word, ambiguous and lacking proper definition.
2nd: A common feature of many "assault rifles" such as ratios which allow for rapid fire and accurate aiming would be useful for covering fire, sweeping a line of enemies, and hitting multiple areas in a target quickly to insure their death. Would be useful in case the right of revolution needed to be invoked. The people have a collective right to execute tyrants and their ability to go to war with the military or police is essential to preserve liberty, and maintain(and as a socialist I would say actually create) a government for, of and by the people.
The analogy to the locked door isn't a satisfactory one, it isn't because of the locked door, knowing my neighbors, various weapons near by in the house and so on that I feel safe in it, but it is the overall community it is in and is a part of which makes it safe or unsafe. A community which chastises robbers, which shoots certain kinds of trespassers, and so on, is one safer than others. In the same way, a community which actively protects itself from sexual predators, rather than passively through avoidance is also one which is safer.
Alternatively, any potential rapist should be the one which should feel unsafe, too unsafe to actually rape. It isn't the group which is victimized which should be pressured to change, but the oppressors which should be overcame and defeated.
Besides, babies are practically identical looking male or female, the question isn't one of looks, it is one of how fucked up and deserving of punishment and being in fear a rapist is. The solution isn't burkas for babies, which is ridiculous on it's face, but in harsh punishments for those who would molest them.
Welfare is like religion, it stops the poor from killing the rich.
As for the move, obviously they couldn't afford it. So they would instead just move into the near by mansions.
Under most free market concepts, such things wouldn't exist.
Its also the world according to conservatives, just substitute soda or formula for homosexuality or paganism and multiply the ferocity by a thousand. For libertarians substitute theory over means, so that people have freedom but not opportunity. and welcome to the wide range of liberalism. na, not a fan of liberalism :p
Yes, a lot actually.
The main things will be healthcare and some of the bail outs.
The mandate was originally a conservative sponsered idea, mitt even set up a similar thing in MA as governor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/
The GOP is just appealing to the likes of the birther movement. Obama originally opposed the mandate, now that he started to support it, guess what the gop doesn't like? obama.
How does a marriage license differ from a broad private contract?"
A contract between the military, spouse, and a military personnel is a contract with the government.
Ultimately the only substantial thing about marriage is how it is a contract with the government for various privileges and benefits.
You seem to want to just change the name.
It should also be pointed out how a contract requires a third party enforcer to carry much weight in most cases, and thus most contracts defacto are contracts with the government in that the government agrees to enforce them.
So does Jesus hand you that piece of paper personally?
Or is it his appointed emissary on earth which does that?
What about the legal benefits of marriage?
For example, the spouse of a military personnel can live on base with them.
Marriage serves several purposes via granting numerous privileges and rights.
She isn't native American through! This is a blasphemy against the Disney gods!
Good idea, we could just post these on cricket debates. I have a few that would work.
Is it within the power of government to regulate commence? Specifically to restrict the sell of cannabis?
(I do have a relevant point here.)
Does the government have the right to stop someone from throwing someone into a volcano?
Depends on how you define god, the god being referenced by the picture typically is attributed contradicting attributes, or attributes that contradict with the world.
"a" == lack of, "theist" == believer in god, "atheist" == a nonbeliever in god.
The word "god" in and of itself means almost nothing due to it meaning nearly anything. Once one starts to name the specifics of a god, one can analyze those specific claims for internal consistency and consistency with the world. No positive claims need be made. I doubt you'll find very many atheists who will claim that the god of pantheism doesn't exist, although they may contest whether its a god or not. The same can be said for numerous other religions and their gods or god like concepts.
Perhaps the most common thing with atheists is the understanding that if something is supernatural, than it is equivalent to not existing. Although it might technically exist, the detail is a minor one for our lives and is often shorted to the "not existent category".
Atheism is the lack of a specific claim,
depending on how you define god and existence the claim that there is no god can indeed be rational and as factual as other factual claims.
? atheists disagree on many things. Their only point of agreement is a lack of belief in god, however that is defined. I challenge you to do this 3 or 4 times: Pick any two atheists on this site, at random, and see what their world view is and how similar it is. Actually, you can even make a new debate about it, asking the atheists to describe their world view; chances are it'll become a clusterfuck of disagreement.
:) rather, its that they don't want any one from being restricted from marrying either their own or the other gender.
Pepper spraying already subdued and peaceful people is unethical. It would be funny if the cop got shot right afterwords though.
You seem to be suggesting that homosexuality is a disorder, rather than a normal deviation of sexuality.
Gays tend to vote liberal because they value their freedom.
The 99% refers to wealth distribution.
The occupy movement is more about instituting a true representative government than it is about a large cohesive nation wide or world wide agenda. Tonight I sat down next to a libertarian and a market socialist and talked in a reasonable manner with them and it was beautiful. I believe we all learned alot. The biggest thing OWS seems to do is bring people together.
The system is broken and some people want to make it worst.
The people lack their voice.
So their trying to take it back and fix the system.
A common theme, at least at occupy indy is ending the fed or reforming it, and also talk about tax systems.
Also, the influence money has on politics and government transparency is a very common theme.
Its not a bunch of hippies, although a few do little to give credit to that claim(at least hippy girls tend to be sexy...Ah pun! )
Did you know there is a natural rate of unemployment?
Did you know that for every dollar made more than one dollar is owed, fractional reserve banking.
Did you know that money is considered free speech, even when it disrupts our democratic processes?
Etc.
Blaming people for flaws in the system is absurd.
People are perfect, at least when it comes to questions of if they are to blame or if the system is since people are the product of the system. Its time to change that, and make the system the product of the people. Sadly, this requires the people to take to the streets.
So long as business owners decide not to increase their income to offset their loses to taxes, it shouldn't affect their profit margins.
Their profit should be at an approximate maximum, and taxing a small population of society higher shouldn't affect demand for most productions too much, so the maximum profit should still occur at roughly the same price.
Increasing the price will lower the demand, so attempts by owners to pass on personal income taxes though their business will likely result in even greater loses in profits; which means less capital gains and less income growth in the long term.
So a rational owner wouldn't attempt to pass on personal income taxes down though their company product price, so long as their in the business for the long term. If their in it for the short term, then either the business will disappear and long term concerns about jobs and such are moot, or someone in it for the long term will eventually take over.
Maybe if economies weren't so tied together.
For example, If America makes war on china, or vice versa, the economic results of eliminating most of your countries demand or supply chain would be disastrous. Most countries that would participate in a world war have such economic relationships with many countries, another example: the EU countries are unlikely to war with each other for the same reason mentioned above.
War can bring a short term boost to an economy under certain world wide conditions, but those conditions have passed into history.
Fiat money is only valuable because people accept it as such.
Its the same as monopoly money, except the game is life.
Other then as paper, or metal. Money has no use value, and only exchange value.
Look up the following:
argumentum ad populum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Appeal to authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
You can also read about troy in the Iliad, along with Athena.
you can read about most people's culture, land, and so forth via reading their religious books.
The truth of part of the book, doesn't entail the truth of the other parts.
For example, troy exists but does Athena exist because of this?
The book called left behind isn't non-fiction.
Christians don't believe based on evidence, they believe based on faith.
In other words, Religion is one big appeal to emotion.
So long as your dependent on a belief, you will hold on to it and defend it despite rationality.
What is your life without your religion?
If you can't imagine it being anything good or at least if you always imagine it being worst then with religion: then the evidence will likely never have an effect. Religion is emotional, not rational.
The common argument about evil existing because of freewill being the ultimate good either means that evil is the ultimate good or that god is limited. I can go into the Riddle of Epicurus, show pascal's wager to be dumb, etc and so forth but If I do, please don't just repeat yourself like most Christians do on such subjects. They have a tendency of doing this-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
So religion is everything?
if so, then religion doesn't signify anything, and is meaningless.
Religion is measured by conviction, conviction alone however may not lead one to act on that conviction. For example, an smoker might believe people shouldn't smoke, but finds his addiction to be too difficult to overcome. How then do you measure conviction if not by action, all that is left is the person's word. Sure the person could be lying, but its the best method we have.
Remember that republicans also claim that republicanism isn't a religion, but continue to preach.
Remember that psychologist also claim that their theories are not religions, but continue to preach.
Remember that marketers also claim that their brands are not religions, but continue to preach.
.......
Remember that republicans also claim that republicanism isn't a religion, but continue to preach.
Remember that psychologist also claim that their theories are not religions, but continue to preach.
Remember that marketers also claim that their brands are not religions, but continue to preach.
.......
It might be the belief that there is no god, but the more general definition is that it is a lack of belief that there is a god.
Science can't prove that there isn't a separate universe somewhere that has different laws then us(unless it can prove that there should be some type of portal or bridge in that case and there isn't), but it can prove or rather supply a very good chain of evidence which approximates a proof, that within our observable universe, where the scientific laws are consistent as far as is observable, that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
I could be in an ocean at the moment, near the bottom and never know it, while simultaneously in front of a computer due to the possibility of the super-natural. How relevant is that though? The ocean existing and not existing has the same meaning. Its kinda like multiplying a variable by zero, the variable might have a value other then zero, but what does it matter if all we know for sure is the result? math might not be able to tell you the value of the variable, only what it could be, but it can tell you the result which is what is actually relevant. In a similar line of thought, science might not be able to tell you if a irrelevant supernatural perpetual motion machine exists but it can tell you if a natural one does, since the evidence science can provide for or against such a thing is good enough that it might as well constitute a proof.
"In order to be an Atheist, you have to have faith that there's no God."
You could just have faith that if god was real, relevant, and understandable then you could understand him by logic.
Analyzing the properties of various gods can lead you to reject the inconsistent ones.
Your lack of belief in what is typically considered god then would not be by faith that there is no god, but by faith that if there is a god then god is logically consistent.
Really though, if you think about it; God being a contradiction would explain why he is supposedly all powerful since you can conclude anything from a contradiction, although that would make any and all arguments of what God means to humanity invalid, since they would ultimately be reasoning from a contradiction. Faith that, if a god exists then it is a meaningful god will lead you to reject the most common versions of god.
Science can prove that a man-made perpetual machine did not, does not and will not exist, at least in the sense of how science can prove things.
Faith is belief despite matters of accuracy. Every system of thought has basic axioms, when people hold a belief about these axioms or their resulting theorems they are also implementing faith because these axioms either possess no way to verify their accuracy or their accuracy isn't considered in the belief. For example: 2+2 = 4 can be wrong if some axioms of math doesn't hold. In the world we commonly observe we can see that rain drops do not add together, so 2 raindrops +2 raindrops = 1 raindrop(albeit a bigger one, but that is irrelevant). To say that 2+2 = 4 is to assume that what you are adding possess certain properties, aka to interject a belief which has an unknown accuracy. Your effectively creating a pretend world, and acting on faith that the pretend world and actual world match up nicely. It is only in a pretend world where everything has certain properties such that 2+2=4. In actually, the degree which anything possess those properties is less then ideal. For example, if two pieces of identical cake become smashed together, are they now 1 large(likely messy) piece of cake or just 2 pieces really close together? Keep in mind that cakes are formed in multiple pieces, such as wedding cakes. These types of objections against math being a matter of fact applies to any system of thought, for there is always uncertainty and thus some level of faith or at least, some level of acting like you have faith. Faith, or at least acting as if you have it, is an essential part of modeling, which is an essential part of living.
How do you know your perception isn't faulty?
The table could be part of a psychotic break.
Also, god is a question which science lacks the means to assess. Logic doesn't, but science does. God as usually understood is an empirically unfalsifiable hypothesis because god is usually considered as outside of nature and science deals only with nature and falsifiable hypothesizes about it. Now, if your a pantheist god is something different...
Brand new technologies tend to be integrated into old ones, for example MP3 players are pretty much obsolete, they have been integrated into phones.
A number of those jobs you mentioned would remain constant or decrease with improvements in technology.
For example, if a machine was made which produced more per less labor, but still produced the same amount, then less laborers would be needed and the excess would be laid off. The machines which are replacing the old ones might do such with less raw materials going into making them. The same extraction tools used previously could be used. The same means of transportation could be used. Its just one patent for the creative people, they must produce multiple patents to continue to survive and the number of people employed in the endeavor is likely less and the time of employment is likely less then working at the old machine would result in, or they gain the royalties from the patent and thus don't need to work. The same management and overseeing can be used, the same sales pitch and advertising can be used, just add in the new and improved part or version 2.0) The same argument for creative people applies to lawyers and programers, writers, etc and the new machine might take up less electricity then the old one.
For every job lost due to a technological advancement in society, the capital used to support the old technology will be used to support the new such that less jobs are needed. The most prosperous nations are service based economies for no coincidence either.
Libertarian measures could, in the right economy, lead towards a more classless stateless system which respects basic rights.
I think the corporation thing is more likely to happen in most cases, but not in all.
If I ever find the time I might try to find economic variables that could be used to study bifurcations between different economic trends/systems. Different policies should work differently in different systems, so knowing the bifurcations would be very useful. I think defining economic systems in terms of what bifurcation values the system is between would be a lot better then calling the system by some ideological name.
Its used to rewrite history and provide support for the fallacious sense that our secular government is somehow based on a theocratic intention and thus laws should be based on some religious book, the implementation of which would erode rights and get rid of the "clean conscience" which is necessary for "true religion".
Historically it means "your church stays out of my church/state". ;)
Jobs exist for particular reasons, mainly the division of labor and the distribution of wealth both of which are dependent on technology.As technology improves, Real wealth becomes distributed and Labor more automated. The limit of this trend is a jobless society, where there would be no reason to have jobs.
It advocates/promotes a class of religions. Some have Gods, others no Gods, to only have "In god we trust" is an explicit statement of endorsement of the ones that only have one god.
3D printers can currently produce the majority of their parts, which then just have to be put together.
In a few years, 3D printers should be able to produce all their parts, or to do such with an auxiliary machine.
You can put the parts together by hand, or with another machine.
Alarming alarms are for anti-alarmist alarming that alarmists can no longer be alarming...
Lets leave the political pseudo-scientific stuff out of the global warming debate, and turn to what the scientific consensus is:
The charter of Virginia was before the constitution, by quite a few years. I mentioned such things as the colonies laws and their affects previously.
The separation of church and state arose out of the sectarian climate of the times.
Congress screws up, alot. I also already addressed the non-influential "founders".
Early Members of Congress continuing some aspects of their sectarian past (admittedly the more general aspects) is no surprise.
Again, it doesn't mean Christianity is foundational.
Theocracies are problematic, there are reasons why the colonies became less and less oriented towards their religion. Especially around the times of America's founding.
You've done a good job on your last two posts, I've enjoyed it :).
Perhaps, but what makes an expert? The scientific consensus is really what should be referenced, ie multiple peer reviewed repeatable studies.
Do you truly believe it is impossible to be, for the most part, objective with the constitution?
If that is the case, isn't it also true for the bible?
The establishment clause is basically the separation of church and state clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Laws should be fluid, and fit the people they govern. The government derives its sovereignty from that of its citizens, etc.
Yet, there should be measures against the tyranny of the majority. You will find those views prevalent amongst the founders.
Also, it should be noticed that what is allowed is not always constitutional, or supported by other founding documents(even if they don't carry legal importance). Consider the declaration of independence and slavery.
Where in the bible is a respect for other people's religions stated by Jesus, or even implied?
Also, he could be referencing Christians in the same way which Jefferson called himself a christian. Especially since he clearly states that it isn't due to organize religion. It seems from my small amount of reading on him that he may be one of those "unorthodox" or "liberal" Christians.
From where is George being quoted from, perhaps his farewell address? The idea that religion leads to political prosperity is demonstrably false. Consider the roman empire :) Or a great number of theocracies, or middle eastern countries. Also the idea that morality can not be maintained without religion is also false(consider various atheists, and various religious members), morality is a result of a reiterative prisoners' delima involving many many players. And yes, that explains why an "eye for an eye", or tic for tac is a popular form of morality. Although, recognizing that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" has its advantages(super-rational anyone :) ) Perhaps George was a religious prick, the same as most Americans of his time. Fact is, what was in the constitution wasn't popular; but it was necessary. The federalist papers exist for a reason. This doesn't mean the constitution, nor the country, was founded on Christianity, if anything it was an act against the grain of the sentiments of its time; but one passed due to certain conditions of that time. A reading of David Hume will show its enlightenment roots. George may of believed that religion was important, but such beliefs seems at odd with his other beliefs against fractions, beliefs for unity etc That he put so much emphasis on religion is rather ironic considering his other beliefs and should be interpreted not as an important founding belief, since it doesn't appear in any founding documents, nor does anything in any founding documents derive from such a belief in the importance of religion. Just because a belief may of been popular or supported by a prominent figure doesn't mean its a founding belief, or had a foundational aspect. otherwise, various medical beliefs of the time might as well be considered foundational.
Was jay speaking as a judge, or as a christian? He is correct on some points, although the treaty of tripoli would disagree with him on others. If he is speaking as a judge, he is speaking as a bad one.(<--I'm assuming context here) If as a christian outside of his work, then its a private affair.
Without context, it seems Madison is simply stating that he believes that the 10 commandments are a good/necessary code to live by, and that the country is not founded on the 10 commandments, but on each person's free will to choose to follow a good/necessary code. Most people live by some of the 10 commandments, since it contains some general morality present in most moral systems. Considering a code necessary which has most of it naturally accepted by a varied society isn't supporting a particular religion much, since so much, if not all can be accepted from various religious standpoints. Rather its just supporting a particular code, not necessarily the religion behind it. Again, this doesn't make the 10 commandments foundational.
What might make the bible foundational, is a strong demonstrable correlation between it and the constitution. That seems to be lacking. More than just Christianity being popular is needed to describe it as being foundational, perhaps it is foundational; in that it lead to the establishment clause and people starting to reject sectarianism. However, that was pre-conditioned and required dropping the importance of religious differences, which lessened the importance of religion. If religion was foundational, it was foundational in the sense that the country gave up on it on the federal scale. Unless I'm missing out on a chain of events which somehow positively relates the founding of America to religion. Perhaps religious persecution helping to lead to the development of colonies?
Whats the relevancy of Harvard?
Could you do a better job of referencing please, I would like to look up context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Logical fallacies are numerous in your post.
Decisions should be based on a concrete, honest, analysis of material conditions.
Opinions are flimsy, and for the same reason they generally make for bad premises in arguments; they make for bad laws.
Appealing to previous popular beliefs is another form of argumentum_ad_populum
Religious values make a difference, but religious values are varied and wide. Religion has been used to support and deny a great many of various things.
Who constitutes the "founders" varies, The "core" men of the founders tend to be deists, unorthodox(ie "liberal") Christians, etc. some even were secularists. These "men of god" believed in a different god and religion then what you apparently do. The ones that signed due to fear of England might of been Christians, but what did they have to do with truly drafting the constitution?
The founding fathers were varied in their religious domination, most may of been some form of christian, but most of the more influential ones were strongly influence by diesm, or naturalism. Jefferson even cut the bible up into his own version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The laws reflected religious sentiment, especially in the colonies before the constitution was signed. Many had religious requirements for office, and the religious conflicts amongst denominations resulted in a less secure defense against England. If the nation was to survive, religion had to be left behind. Hence the separation of church and state.
The majority religion in America was various naturalistic earth based ones before imperialistic Europeans came and killed the great majority of their adherents. This was done for , glory, gold, and "god"; and yes, our laws did indeed reflect that. The reservations, the trail of tears, the slavery, etc.
Could you summarize those isms? I have a feeling your ignorant or misinformed on their meanings.
Gender is an social construct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Homosexuality, transgenders, etc bend gender roles. There is no reason why a someone of any sex can not fulfill the psychological role of a mother, or father. There is nothing natural, or empirical which states otherwise. Sure, different sexs have different natural tendencies and physical features, but our culture amplifies these into more than what they are.
There are several societies which define marriage differently, actually polygamy is the most popular and common type of relationship in history. The shift from polygamous systems to more monogamous systems was slow on a world wide scale and directly related to economic factors which allowed for European dominance.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/
You are exhibiting ethno-centralism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The troubles with fundamentalist Mormonism are due to fundamentalist Mormonism, a different philosophical back drop would eradicate such problems. Consider polyamory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Need varies, "traditional" marriage meets only a small subset of needs which have been prevalent for only the last couple hundred years or so and only in advance societies. These societies are now currently advancing past those needs.
What kind of material devastating affects will they have? The scientific studies on the matter disagrees with your assessments. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/
"traditional marriage" should and will still be allowed. The constitution says so, that is so long as it isn't violated. Church are private institutions, private clubs so to say. If the boyscout can ban atheists or homosexuals then surly so can a church.
What context is George being quoted in? Surly he doesn't mean that the tyranny of the majority will prevail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The country didn't want to end segregation, allow for religious freedom, etc. either, but the rights of man and the constitution had something else to say on the matter.
The name shouldn't matter.
Its the legal institution people are fighting to change, primarily at least. The social and religious institutions are secondary or even irrelevant.
Secularism doesn't magically mean your not discriminatory.
The history of the united states is a history of violating the constitution less and less.
To deny gays to marry is to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Your same argument can easily of been used to support segregation, slavery, women not voting etc.
Further more, why should your personal beliefs constitute laws?
Also you haven't really explained how allowing only traditional marriage is so valuable.
So?
Why should legal unions be intertwined with the type of peoples' sexual relationships?
Correlation does not equal causation, a number of other factors could influence those statistics.
Apparently there is also: "Halfway up the steps of the monument is an inscription in Welsh: Fy iaith, fy ngwlad, fy nghenedl Cymru — Cymru am byth (My language, my land, my nation of Wales — Wales for ever). The reason for this inscription and its author are unknown.[29]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Well the premise of the article is possible, the article doesn't include the possibility that there is a infinity of other possible realities which may exist along side each other. Computer simulations may not be able to become advance enough in all of them, perhaps due to the lack of copper or other conductive material around where life evolved there.
Well each reality with the right resources could create a multitude of computer simulations, and those a multitude. In each reality it would reach a limit due to resources. Thus the statistics of concerning the likely hood of if we are in a simulation or "reality" depends on the ratio of potential "resourceful" realities to non-resourceful ones.
"With faith, no explanation is necessary. Without faith, no explanation is possible.”
Its pretty obvious why its dumb, it states A is A(a obvious and pretty useless statement if your trying to make a point), since it seems "explanation" is roughly equivalent to "evidence" here, and somewhere down the line we take something as true without evidence in order to construct arguments, the part he is wrong at is that he doesn't seem to be including all the possibilities for example: hypothetically taking something as true, assuming something is true, etc are different than believing it is true. Also, to use "explanation" like its intended in modern language, would lead one to realize that faith is an explanation. Leading his first part to be," with an explanation, no explanation is necessary"
swing elements aren't that hard to learn. There are a lot of good resources on the net as well and if you know how to program then the only part you need to learn is basically the libraries and how it handles events(maybe concurrent programing/threading as well). I actually have a final project that is due soon(Monday at 5). If you want after I'm done I can share the source if you want some examples. I'm sure its not incorporating the best coding practices but i got a 96/100 and good comments on what I'm expanding for the final. Its an ascii animation.
Love may not be a priority, or it may be but not the only one, and thus not carry the most weight in a decision to lets say: move away, commit a crime and go to prison, etc actions which may put many miles and much time between two people. A long distance relationship may not be desirable despite the love they share.
If love is the only priority in the above situations, then Love lead to the break up. Like moving away to send money back home to your lover, or committing a crime for the benefit of your lover may cause an agreement to not be sexually committed(ie a break up) so that they may have their needs for romance and such fulfilled. Such a break up is love sacrificing the committed relationship for the benefit of the lover.
It is possible to be in love, and break up. Due to the above situation and others. Often times lovers break up because a difference in sexual desire lead to trust issues. Other times because of the stresses from a occupation, like being a soldier. etc etc.
What relevance does the ratio of births to divorces have?
True love never dies and has little to do with sexuality in the long run.
There is more to a relationship then love. Those other things can cause a break up.
The founding fathers were a varied group in religious terms, most of the more popular ones and more of those who had more weight in it happening, were distrustful of organized religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
