So you want to force people into a socialized system and then you want to berate them for making choices that hurt the community and exercising their own choices.
How about those who want to socialize everything have to suck it up and deal with a modicum of freedom that remains.
Since education is controlled at the local and state level, why should we think a large government organization created in the late 70s is necessary for good education?
I think you are confusing science with science-ism.
If you are wondering if I as a theist am worried that science will be hostile to my faith, I do not. Science rests on the assumption that physical laws will remain the same. They aren't hanging in mid-air. That's basically an assumption for a law-giver/maker/sustainer. Theism is built into the foundation of science.
Now, those who run around claiming that if we can't prove something scientifically we can't believe it, that's another matter. But I'll worry about that when they prove that belief scientifically.
"While I think this is a good law in theory, I'm worried that it's merely a way to prevent the populace from fighting back against an increasingly autocratic regime."
The Founding Fathers put in the 2nd Amendment for people like Hugo Chavez, not because for hunting, etc.
Human nature, being what it is, didn't not get obliterated when Jewish religion spread. But the historical record is clear. Jewish religion (primarily Christianity) is what has made this world civilized.
We take on the beliefs and assumptions that Christianity has given the Western world, even if some of us are atheists. The world without Christian and Judaic influence would be horrific.
Try to imagine the context of the ancient near east culture and what life would be like for those women without those provisions. Women can be free in a society largely influenced by Christianity which tells people not to rape and pillage and to treat women as being full persons.
You may be an atheist, but my guess is that you are a Christian atheist.
Once there is a remotely plausible naturalistic Origin of Life scenario that actually has details and lots of steps that can be shown to be true, then the tide would turn.
If you are a naturalist, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
"Investors were still shaking their heads over the botched opening trading of Facebook when Reuters reported late Monday that the consumer internet analyst at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley cut his revenue forecasts for Facebook in the days before the offering.
JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which were also underwriters on the deal, each revised its estimates during the road show as well, according to sources familiar with the situation."
From what I've been reading and listening to that information didn't come out to everyone. That's just awful and this IPO seems like a big mess.
On the plus side, the market hasn't been going crazy so it seems that the new tech bubble may not be all that bad.
I've looked at the numbers and I haven't seen any country in Europe (besides Greece by a little bit) reduce their spending year-over-year. That doesn't sound like austerity.
He did raise taxes to reduce the deficit. And that will suck money out of the private sector and slow the economy. But I'm not sure if that warrants the label austerity.
But pretty soon we'll all see real austerity if we maintain the present course.
What's this guy's fair share for that infrastructure? Do you want to exclude all the items not needed for Facebook? Does Facebook need to pay for HUD, NASA, etc.?
And doesn't Facebook already pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and provide jobs and a service to the public at large?
The government exists to enable commerce, but that doesn't mean the government should have whatever percentage it wants.
Conservatives are more generous than liberals in all sorts of categories. Donating time to charities to donating blood.
The cause seems to be that when you think it is the government's responsibility to help people, you are less willing to help people. Personally, I think focusing on the government being the main source of help turns people into greedy narcissists only concerned about how much they are getting. You don't have to worry about helping others because it isn't your responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Very good point. I was going to post something like this.
Hollywood stars, both male and female, who got too much plastic surgery would fall under the Uncanny Valley.
Fair point.
So you want to force people into a socialized system and then you want to berate them for making choices that hurt the community and exercising their own choices.
How about those who want to socialize everything have to suck it up and deal with a modicum of freedom that remains.
Since education is controlled at the local and state level, why should we think a large government organization created in the late 70s is necessary for good education?
I think you are confusing science with science-ism.
If you are wondering if I as a theist am worried that science will be hostile to my faith, I do not. Science rests on the assumption that physical laws will remain the same. They aren't hanging in mid-air. That's basically an assumption for a law-giver/maker/sustainer. Theism is built into the foundation of science.
Now, those who run around claiming that if we can't prove something scientifically we can't believe it, that's another matter. But I'll worry about that when they prove that belief scientifically.
My Asian friend (who happens to be quite liberal) said once "we aren't a minority; we do well."
I was going to answer "Tesla and one of his experiments" but your explanation works for me.
I know a retired cop who fished one too many bodies out of the water. He refuses to eat crab.
"While I think this is a good law in theory, I'm worried that it's merely a way to prevent the populace from fighting back against an increasingly autocratic regime."
The Founding Fathers put in the 2nd Amendment for people like Hugo Chavez, not because for hunting, etc.
And when Iran sent terrorists into Iraq? Or took over our embasssy? Or blew up Jewish or Israeli buildings in places all over the world?
Were any of those acts of war?
You are missing the forest for the trees.
Human nature, being what it is, didn't not get obliterated when Jewish religion spread. But the historical record is clear. Jewish religion (primarily Christianity) is what has made this world civilized.
We take on the beliefs and assumptions that Christianity has given the Western world, even if some of us are atheists. The world without Christian and Judaic influence would be horrific.
Try to imagine the context of the ancient near east culture and what life would be like for those women without those provisions. Women can be free in a society largely influenced by Christianity which tells people not to rape and pillage and to treat women as being full persons.
You may be an atheist, but my guess is that you are a Christian atheist.
I'm aware. You can feel free to draw the line between the two concepts all you want, but it's still part of the same package.
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Just curious. Do Chinese telcos allow for firewall connections into foreign (read Western) countries? That could put a crimp into remotely logging in.
Once there is a remotely plausible naturalistic Origin of Life scenario that actually has details and lots of steps that can be shown to be true, then the tide would turn.
If you are a naturalist, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
8. You shouldn't break into a Hollywood set and grab the Apollo 11 equipment. We want it to be a part of Universal Studios some day.
"Investors were still shaking their heads over the botched opening trading of Facebook when Reuters reported late Monday that the consumer internet analyst at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley cut his revenue forecasts for Facebook in the days before the offering.
JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which were also underwriters on the deal, each revised its estimates during the road show as well, according to sources familiar with the situation."
From what I've been reading and listening to that information didn't come out to everyone. That's just awful and this IPO seems like a big mess.
On the plus side, the market hasn't been going crazy so it seems that the new tech bubble may not be all that bad.
I've looked at the numbers and I haven't seen any country in Europe (besides Greece by a little bit) reduce their spending year-over-year. That doesn't sound like austerity.
He did raise taxes to reduce the deficit. And that will suck money out of the private sector and slow the economy. But I'm not sure if that warrants the label austerity.
But pretty soon we'll all see real austerity if we maintain the present course.
One person's puppet of oil and gas is another person's guy trying not to implode the economy.
Thanks for proving my point. The important thing, to you, is how you spend someone else's money. What you do with your money is insignificant to you.
What's this guy's fair share for that infrastructure? Do you want to exclude all the items not needed for Facebook? Does Facebook need to pay for HUD, NASA, etc.?
And doesn't Facebook already pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and provide jobs and a service to the public at large?
The government exists to enable commerce, but that doesn't mean the government should have whatever percentage it wants.
Don't smoke, don't feed the homeless, don't pick which lightbulb you like, etc., etc.
Your own food is too fatty, salty, etc.
Liberals don't believe in a right to privacy except for the sexual sphere of life. They are busybodies par excellance.
Look up the book "Who Really Cares?"
Conservatives are more generous than liberals in all sorts of categories. Donating time to charities to donating blood.
The cause seems to be that when you think it is the government's responsibility to help people, you are less willing to help people. Personally, I think focusing on the government being the main source of help turns people into greedy narcissists only concerned about how much they are getting. You don't have to worry about helping others because it isn't your responsibility.