And faith means that all facts that fit your faith are true, all facts that don't, are false. And you shouldn't try to research these facts to see if they really are true, that will just confuse you.
are you sure? because that's what people are saying. smart people. i don't know, but that's what they're saying. that you saw it. all i know is what's on the internet.
I doubt we have 1000 years left on earth. The current max lifespan seems to be about 115. Even with modern advancements in science I doubt we'll make it to having 1000 years left on earth.
Now, our descendants might be here in 1000 years, but we won't be- at least not in one piece any more.
In the span of 1000 years, I can certainly see humans being able to travel and inhabit other nearby planets but do we really think we'll be at a point where we can move large groups of humans >25 trillion miles away? Or does he see this more as we'll be putting civilization into space for centuries-long travel toward those other systems?
When I was growing up it was a SF truism that we would of course have colonized the comparatively easy sea floor by the far off year of 2000.
That is exactly what we are afraid of.
Trump is just a stupid greedy trust fund brat who is famous for being a bully and really doesn't have what it takes to lead.. while Pence is truly scary in his zealotry and bigotry (never mind that his doctrine directly counterfeits the bible he claims to believe)
Trump can save the government money by dismantling the Secret Service; progressives will volunteer to guard him for free to ensure Pence doesn't inherit the presidency.
It's kind of like how the crazy Americans keep claiming that "Democrat candidate XYZ is going to steal our guns!" - despite the very carefully not discussed fact that the total number of guns Obama stole was zero. It's a convenient thing to rage about and accuse them of being even more evil than whatever candidate ZYX just did in public and bragged about.
Also why they kept screaming that Obama was going to lock them all up in FEMA death camps - which they're now bragging that their new Furer will be locking their enemies up in. (Hint: He's not going to do that any more than Obama was. These people are just delusional. Unfortunately, they also vote.)
The crazy Americans are a minority, but unfortunately, they're a really loud one, and the American media loves pretending to be "balanced" by giving lots of airtime to people who are clearly unbalanced.
Simple statistics. Surveys etc. look like approx. 25% of the public are high functioning cognitive defectives, whether through "low IQ", "emotional illness", "bad upbringing", "lack of education", whatever; can't be relied on to always make an appropriate, optimal decision in situations where that decision is obvious, but can fake it well enough most of the time to survive in society. Another 25% might be generally capable of making decisions which do not injure themselves or others, but are fixated on particular issues to the exclusion of all other factors; islamophobia, antisemitism, other prejudices; animal rights, progun, antigun, other causes; excessive party loyalty, etc. which overrule "good judgement". And now we've nearly got a majority, if these folks all skew the same direction. Similar to the observation that half the population has less than average intelligence. or wisdom. or integrity. or decency. etc.
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
No, you fail to see the brilliance of that claim. If they don't nuke everything, you get to survive. And if they do, you get to say I told you so.
I also wonder when people think that we can somehow figure out a way to travel at light speeds to get to another planet. The alternative is to spend thousands of years traveling to another planet and potentially find it uninhabitable or die on the way. Any other planet would have a distinctly different gravity - one on which we have not evolved. How would we enable a breathable atmosphere? How would we remove toxins from the environment. It's quite probable that most of the environment would in one way or another be toxic.
How would we get a significant number of people to this planet? We would need to apply and quickly adapt the most cutting edge technology to survive - would we only take scientists, engineers and mathematicians? How would we successfully synthesize soil quickly enough? How would be know what kind of weather patterns to expect and how would we cope with them? Category 5 hurricanes could be a daily occurrence. Would we get enough sunlight? How would we make sure the temperatures do not exceed tolerable limits?
Why not stay here on earth and gradually reduce the human population to around 500 million people. 500 million people could maintain a high standard of living without making Earth uninhabitable. We could allow large areas such as South America to go back to being forests and live in those areas that are most conducive for human life. And we could use space technology to mine asteroids to provide additional raw materials. We could even start removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and eventually bring it down to historic levels. 500 million people are few enough that we could all eat a lot of meat and it still would be sustainable.
And we need a conversation about who does and does not care. The Middle East does not care about the planet. Neither does India or China or Indonesia or most of Africa. India's population has almost caught up with China. Regardless of reducing the world population or escaping the planet, how would we do this if most of the planet is not on board?
There is always the possibility that the development of the technology to allow humanity to survive the destruction of earth by founding autonomous extraterrestrial colonies will bring about the destruction of humanity before that happens, by handing control of really dangerous levels of energy to the usual gang of idiotic bosses and managers, by shifting resources essential to survival to other goals (see Easter Island, the Anasazi, the Maya), or some similar combination.
And, the solution of "leaving the nest" contains the implicit assumption that we wouldn't scale up our problems and bring them along. Like interplanetary/interstellar warfare wouldn't become feasible soon after interplanetary/interstellar travel makes interplanetary/interstellar colonies feasible.
I also wonder when people think that we can somehow figure out a way to travel at light speeds to get to another planet. The alternative is to spend thousands of years traveling to another planet and potentially find it uninhabitable or die on the way. Any other planet would have a distinctly different gravity - one on which we have not evolved. How would we enable a breathable atmosphere? How would we remove toxins from the environment. It's quite probable that most of the environment would in one way or another be toxic.
How would we get a significant number of people to this planet? We would need to apply and quickly adapt the most cutting edge technology to survive - would we only take scientists, engineers and mathematicians? How would we successfully synthesize soil quickly enough? How would be know what kind of weather patterns to expect and how would we cope with them? Category 5 hurricanes could be a daily occurrence. Would we get enough sunlight? How would we make sure the temperatures do not exceed tolerable limits?
Why not stay here on earth and gradually reduce the human population to around 500 million people. 500 million people could maintain a high standard of living without making Earth uninhabitable. We could allow large areas such as South America to go back to being forests and live in those areas that are most conducive for human life. And we could use space technology to mine asteroids to provide additional raw materials. We could even start removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and eventually bring it down to historic levels. 500 million people are few enough that we could all eat a lot of meat and it still would be sustainable.
And we need a conversation about who does and does not care. The Middle East does not care about the planet. Neither does India or China or Indonesia or most of Africa. India's population has almost caught up with China. Regardless of reducing the world population or escaping the planet, how would we do this if most of the planet is not on board?
Logically, we'd be much better off uploading ourselves into simulation. We could run through thousands of generations much more quickly than in real time, while cutting our resource utilization and waste creation to minimum; have a backup for when we go down the wrong path in the simulation; and maybe eventually come upon a solution so fantastic that we'll want to implement it in the real world.
Hey, what if all those religious references to paradise, heaven, the post-Messianic world to come were trying to describe simulations?
There's some caveats to this. We cannot continue our growth based society for more than about 200 more years. This is because energy usage is directly tied to growth and in about 200 years we'll boil the oceans just with the amount of power we use.
If we can transition from a growth based society to a stable society then we could continue on Earth but that society doesn't look a whole lot like the one we have now.
Likewise climate change is already on track to radically alter our planet from what we've known for the entirety of human existence. Yes the human race will adapt and survive but what kind of society (and technological level) we will have after that period of adaptation is completely unknown. All we know is that it will look nothing like what we have now.
But plants grows better with more CO2 so that's a good thing. And people prefer it warm so global warming is a good thing. And people prefer to live on dry land, so boiling the ocean is a good thing.
I do agree that we should strive to spread out into space, so as to avoid leaving all our eggs in one basket, but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore.
The History channel has been running this series, "Doomsday: 10 Ways the World Will End": 1: Killer Asteroid, 2: Black Hole, 3: Rogue Planet, 4: Nuclear War, 5: Solar Storm, 6: Mega Eruption, 7: Gamma Ray Burst, 8: Earth Out of Orbit, 9: Alien Invasion, 10: Deep Sea Disaster
The episodes on Black Hole, Rogue Planet and Gamma Ray Burst are especially cheery.
Lol, that's because the killer AIs he keeps predicting have taken over the speech synthesizer and are trying to fool the rest of us in to looking out for killer aliens while the AIs quietly take over the world.
i want to mod this up but my computer keeps modding it down for some reason.
So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.
The rich ones, right?
As Jared Diamond puts it in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", when the Norse colonies in Greenland began to fail, the richest farmers leveraged their resources to gobble up the resources of the desperate poor farmers, thereby winning themselves the privilege of being the last to die of cold and starvation.
We're really adaptable, I would think a population collapse wouldn't eliminate humanity personally.
Civilization will likely end, but I doubt humanity.
People tend to forget, as usual regarding history, that Homo sapiens has been around for at least 100,000 years, maybe as long as 200,000 (even longer if you include hominids), long before what we know of as civilization, which goes back maybe 10,000 years. During that period humans spread out from Africa and colonized all over the world quite successfully. "Civilization" is a recent phenomenon in human history, possibly a terminal stage rather than the next, inevitable, step in some evolutionary process leading to bigger and better things.
Population collapse will occur due to disease, lack of food, or lack of fresh water (possibly due to sea incursions). In any case the survivors will be able to extract a lot of useful materials and tools scavenging the ruins of society. So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.
The biggest extinction threat to primate species historically has been human civilization, so in the absence of that probably the human species will survive along with the other primates as minor niche organisms.
Come to think of it,
The biggest extinction threat to primate species historically has been human civilization
Homo sapiens is a primate species Therefore...
Where do you think rain comes from? More ocean surface area, on a warmer planet, means MORE fresh water, not less.
Unless it all ends up on the Antarctic ice cap. I'm not saying it will, just pointing out that there are complexities and externalities that modify the basic one factor model.
I don't think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet.
He seem to be rather optimistic. I gave it no more than a few hundred years
I'm thinking 3 months tops, some time after Jan. 21st.
Oooh, I want to play! I predict that humanity will go extinct before I finish this sentence.
Damn!
I'm pretty sure I'm the last human left alive, that all the "people" I see every day are androids, and everything online, on TV, etc. is a simulation. The purpose, of course, is for the machine intelligence to study humanity.
I paraphrased.
Here's the original quote:
Levitcus 19:33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. In fact my paraphrasing is extremely close to the original text - and could very easily be the text in a contemporary translation without altering the meaning in any way.
Also worth noting that this message is repeated in several other texts - for example:
Exodus 21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Sojourner would just be an older word meaning 'immigrant'.
There is no doubt in my mind that America's current immigration laws violate the principles of those verses which make them incompatible with Christianity - literally the only reason the bible gives where breaking the law is biblical okay - when the law prevents you from acting as the bible commands, and those texts make no claim of a difference between 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration. It tells you how to treat immigrants, it doesn't say you get to change that treatment because an immigrant hasn't complied with a burocratic process that itself violates those principles and numerous others (like the obligation to care for the poor and destitute and to offer shelter to those fearing for their lives).
Trust the atheist to, as usual, know the bible better than the biblethumpers do.
And that's without me even pointing out that if you oppose offering shelter to refugees fleeing YOUR enemies who want to kill them - then you have become nothing less than a murderer. You fear that one or two Syrian refugees may want to kill Americans ? So you are happy to let hundreds of thousands of them die ? You're a mass murderer if you think that way. Nothing less.
Absolutely. And that was a distinguishing factor of the Hebrew people and their religion and law as compared to its predecessors and contemporaries. So nice to see the conservatives hearkening back to that good old religion before monotheism came along.
“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think... ”
Yep, cut off right before making an explicitly racist comment to then go on...
“A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
A country is also its people, including those who immigrate here and the policies that acknowledge the rights of those to immigrate. It's also the acknowledgment of the notion that opportunity comes who work hard. It's funny that there's so much BS that argues that blacks in America not getting good CEO jobs proves something about them. And then when "two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia" we start talking about "more than an economy" but about "civic society"? The guy is literally a sentence away from begging for Affirmative Action for Whites.
Seriously, at least try to argue for institutional racism against Whites or for Asians in Silicon Valley. If there is any, it's from people who are pro-racist for Asians at least in the "a hard worker" field. When it turns around and means they elevate to CEOs, that's a problem?
"How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain ploughland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one’s country; is it hate of one’s uncountry? Then it’s not a good thing. It is simply self-love? That’s a good thing, but one mustn’t make a virtue of it, or a profession Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.” —Ursula K. Le Guin
I'm guessing you think they're classifying Indians as either white or the (even smaller than the Asian) amount represented by 'Black, Hispanic, Other'.
" “Asian” includes any
citizen or noncitizen having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent. "
Slashdot Mirror
And faith means that all facts that fit your faith are true, all facts that don't, are false. And you shouldn't try to research these facts to see if they really are true, that will just confuse you.
Not me.
are you sure? because that's what people are saying. smart people. i don't know, but that's what they're saying. that you saw it. all i know is what's on the internet.
and then walking it back.
That's not how he rolls.
so who saw big bang theory on Thursday?
You're assuming you're actually better than a cockroach, when in fact, you are just the same. Except I believe cockroaches will outlive humans.
I don't think cockroaches are that successful outside of human dwelling spaces.
I doubt we have 1000 years left on earth. The current max lifespan seems to be about 115. Even with modern advancements in science I doubt we'll make it to having 1000 years left on earth.
Now, our descendants might be here in 1000 years, but we won't be- at least not in one piece any more.
no, we'll still be here. but not terribly active.
In the span of 1000 years, I can certainly see humans being able to travel and inhabit other nearby planets but do we really think we'll be at a point where we can move large groups of humans >25 trillion miles away? Or does he see this more as we'll be putting civilization into space for centuries-long travel toward those other systems?
When I was growing up it was a SF truism that we would of course have colonized the comparatively easy sea floor by the far off year of 2000.
That is exactly what we are afraid of. Trump is just a stupid greedy trust fund brat who is famous for being a bully and really doesn't have what it takes to lead.. while Pence is truly scary in his zealotry and bigotry (never mind that his doctrine directly counterfeits the bible he claims to believe)
Trump can save the government money by dismantling the Secret Service; progressives will volunteer to guard him for free to ensure Pence doesn't inherit the presidency.
It's kind of like how the crazy Americans keep claiming that "Democrat candidate XYZ is going to steal our guns!" - despite the very carefully not discussed fact that the total number of guns Obama stole was zero. It's a convenient thing to rage about and accuse them of being even more evil than whatever candidate ZYX just did in public and bragged about.
Also why they kept screaming that Obama was going to lock them all up in FEMA death camps - which they're now bragging that their new Furer will be locking their enemies up in. (Hint: He's not going to do that any more than Obama was. These people are just delusional. Unfortunately, they also vote.)
The crazy Americans are a minority, but unfortunately, they're a really loud one, and the American media loves pretending to be "balanced" by giving lots of airtime to people who are clearly unbalanced.
Simple statistics. Surveys etc. look like approx. 25% of the public are high functioning cognitive defectives, whether through "low IQ", "emotional illness", "bad upbringing", "lack of education", whatever; can't be relied on to always make an appropriate, optimal decision in situations where that decision is obvious, but can fake it well enough most of the time to survive in society. Another 25% might be generally capable of making decisions which do not injure themselves or others, but are fixated on particular issues to the exclusion of all other factors; islamophobia, antisemitism, other prejudices; animal rights, progun, antigun, other causes; excessive party loyalty, etc. which overrule "good judgement". And now we've nearly got a majority, if these folks all skew the same direction.
Similar to the observation that half the population has less than average intelligence. or wisdom. or integrity. or decency. etc.
What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?
No, you fail to see the brilliance of that claim. If they don't nuke everything, you get to survive. And if they do, you get to say I told you so.
I also wonder when people think that we can somehow figure out a way to travel at light speeds to get to another planet. The alternative is to spend thousands of years traveling to another planet and potentially find it uninhabitable or die on the way. Any other planet would have a distinctly different gravity - one on which we have not evolved. How would we enable a breathable atmosphere? How would we remove toxins from the environment. It's quite probable that most of the environment would in one way or another be toxic. How would we get a significant number of people to this planet? We would need to apply and quickly adapt the most cutting edge technology to survive - would we only take scientists, engineers and mathematicians? How would we successfully synthesize soil quickly enough? How would be know what kind of weather patterns to expect and how would we cope with them? Category 5 hurricanes could be a daily occurrence. Would we get enough sunlight? How would we make sure the temperatures do not exceed tolerable limits? Why not stay here on earth and gradually reduce the human population to around 500 million people. 500 million people could maintain a high standard of living without making Earth uninhabitable. We could allow large areas such as South America to go back to being forests and live in those areas that are most conducive for human life. And we could use space technology to mine asteroids to provide additional raw materials. We could even start removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and eventually bring it down to historic levels. 500 million people are few enough that we could all eat a lot of meat and it still would be sustainable. And we need a conversation about who does and does not care. The Middle East does not care about the planet. Neither does India or China or Indonesia or most of Africa. India's population has almost caught up with China. Regardless of reducing the world population or escaping the planet, how would we do this if most of the planet is not on board?
There is always the possibility that the development of the technology to allow humanity to survive the destruction of earth by founding autonomous extraterrestrial colonies will bring about the destruction of humanity before that happens, by handing control of really dangerous levels of energy to the usual gang of idiotic bosses and managers, by shifting resources essential to survival to other goals (see Easter Island, the Anasazi, the Maya), or some similar combination.
And, the solution of "leaving the nest" contains the implicit assumption that we wouldn't scale up our problems and bring them along. Like interplanetary/interstellar warfare wouldn't become feasible soon after interplanetary/interstellar travel makes interplanetary/interstellar colonies feasible.
I also wonder when people think that we can somehow figure out a way to travel at light speeds to get to another planet. The alternative is to spend thousands of years traveling to another planet and potentially find it uninhabitable or die on the way. Any other planet would have a distinctly different gravity - one on which we have not evolved. How would we enable a breathable atmosphere? How would we remove toxins from the environment. It's quite probable that most of the environment would in one way or another be toxic. How would we get a significant number of people to this planet? We would need to apply and quickly adapt the most cutting edge technology to survive - would we only take scientists, engineers and mathematicians? How would we successfully synthesize soil quickly enough? How would be know what kind of weather patterns to expect and how would we cope with them? Category 5 hurricanes could be a daily occurrence. Would we get enough sunlight? How would we make sure the temperatures do not exceed tolerable limits? Why not stay here on earth and gradually reduce the human population to around 500 million people. 500 million people could maintain a high standard of living without making Earth uninhabitable. We could allow large areas such as South America to go back to being forests and live in those areas that are most conducive for human life. And we could use space technology to mine asteroids to provide additional raw materials. We could even start removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and eventually bring it down to historic levels. 500 million people are few enough that we could all eat a lot of meat and it still would be sustainable. And we need a conversation about who does and does not care. The Middle East does not care about the planet. Neither does India or China or Indonesia or most of Africa. India's population has almost caught up with China. Regardless of reducing the world population or escaping the planet, how would we do this if most of the planet is not on board?
Logically, we'd be much better off uploading ourselves into simulation. We could run through thousands of generations much more quickly than in real time, while cutting our resource utilization and waste creation to minimum; have a backup for when we go down the wrong path in the simulation; and maybe eventually come upon a solution so fantastic that we'll want to implement it in the real world.
Hey, what if all those religious references to paradise, heaven, the post-Messianic world to come were trying to describe simulations?
There's some caveats to this. We cannot continue our growth based society for more than about 200 more years. This is because energy usage is directly tied to growth and in about 200 years we'll boil the oceans just with the amount of power we use. If we can transition from a growth based society to a stable society then we could continue on Earth but that society doesn't look a whole lot like the one we have now. Likewise climate change is already on track to radically alter our planet from what we've known for the entirety of human existence. Yes the human race will adapt and survive but what kind of society (and technological level) we will have after that period of adaptation is completely unknown. All we know is that it will look nothing like what we have now.
But plants grows better with more CO2 so that's a good thing. And people prefer it warm so global warming is a good thing. And people prefer to live on dry land, so boiling the ocean is a good thing.
I do agree that we should strive to spread out into space, so as to avoid leaving all our eggs in one basket, but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore.
The History channel has been running this series, "Doomsday: 10 Ways the World Will End": 1: Killer Asteroid, 2: Black Hole, 3: Rogue Planet, 4: Nuclear War, 5: Solar Storm, 6: Mega Eruption, 7: Gamma Ray Burst, 8: Earth Out of Orbit, 9: Alien Invasion, 10: Deep Sea Disaster
The episodes on Black Hole, Rogue Planet and Gamma Ray Burst are especially cheery.
They completely missed "Trump Presidency"
Lol, that's because the killer AIs he keeps predicting have taken over the speech synthesizer and are trying to fool the rest of us in to looking out for killer aliens while the AIs quietly take over the world.
i want to mod this up but my computer keeps modding it down for some reason.
Most Americans could survive a winter without food- and be far more efficient hunters when spring came around.
Yes, but they will be hunting each other. One step down from selling each other our houses at inflated prices.
The rich ones, right?
As Jared Diamond puts it in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", when the Norse colonies in Greenland began to fail, the richest farmers leveraged their resources to gobble up the resources of the desperate poor farmers, thereby winning themselves the privilege of being the last to die of cold and starvation.
We're really adaptable, I would think a population collapse wouldn't eliminate humanity personally.
Civilization will likely end, but I doubt humanity.
People tend to forget, as usual regarding history, that Homo sapiens has been around for at least 100,000 years, maybe as long as 200,000 (even longer if you include hominids), long before what we know of as civilization, which goes back maybe 10,000 years. During that period humans spread out from Africa and colonized all over the world quite successfully. "Civilization" is a recent phenomenon in human history, possibly a terminal stage rather than the next, inevitable, step in some evolutionary process leading to bigger and better things.
Population collapse will occur due to disease, lack of food, or lack of fresh water (possibly due to sea incursions). In any case the survivors will be able to extract a lot of useful materials and tools scavenging the ruins of society. So I think a small group of humans probably can survive most predicted and predictable calamities.
The biggest extinction threat to primate species historically has been human civilization, so in the absence of that probably the human species will survive along with the other primates as minor niche organisms.
Come to think of it,
The biggest extinction threat to primate species historically has been human civilization
Homo sapiens is a primate species
Therefore...
Where do you think rain comes from? More ocean surface area, on a warmer planet, means MORE fresh water, not less.
Unless it all ends up on the Antarctic ice cap. I'm not saying it will, just pointing out that there are complexities and externalities that modify the basic one factor model.
I don't think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet.
He seem to be rather optimistic. I gave it no more than a few hundred years
I'm thinking 3 months tops, some time after Jan. 21st.
Oooh, I want to play! I predict that humanity will go extinct before I finish this sentence.
Damn!
I'm pretty sure I'm the last human left alive, that all the "people" I see every day are androids, and everything online, on TV, etc. is a simulation. The purpose, of course, is for the machine intelligence to study humanity.
I paraphrased. Here's the original quote: Levitcus 19:33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. In fact my paraphrasing is extremely close to the original text - and could very easily be the text in a contemporary translation without altering the meaning in any way.
Also worth noting that this message is repeated in several other texts - for example: Exodus 21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Sojourner would just be an older word meaning 'immigrant'.
There is no doubt in my mind that America's current immigration laws violate the principles of those verses which make them incompatible with Christianity - literally the only reason the bible gives where breaking the law is biblical okay - when the law prevents you from acting as the bible commands, and those texts make no claim of a difference between 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration. It tells you how to treat immigrants, it doesn't say you get to change that treatment because an immigrant hasn't complied with a burocratic process that itself violates those principles and numerous others (like the obligation to care for the poor and destitute and to offer shelter to those fearing for their lives).
Trust the atheist to, as usual, know the bible better than the biblethumpers do.
And that's without me even pointing out that if you oppose offering shelter to refugees fleeing YOUR enemies who want to kill them - then you have become nothing less than a murderer. You fear that one or two Syrian refugees may want to kill Americans ? So you are happy to let hundreds of thousands of them die ? You're a mass murderer if you think that way. Nothing less.
Absolutely. And that was a distinguishing factor of the Hebrew people and their religion and law as compared to its predecessors and contemporaries. So nice to see the conservatives hearkening back to that good old religion before monotheism came along.
"You're a mass murderer if you think that way. Nothing less." Big brother called, he wants his ideology back.
No comprendo, senor. Explique, por favor.
Yep, cut off right before making an explicitly racist comment to then go on...
A country is also its people, including those who immigrate here and the policies that acknowledge the rights of those to immigrate. It's also the acknowledgment of the notion that opportunity comes who work hard. It's funny that there's so much BS that argues that blacks in America not getting good CEO jobs proves something about them. And then when "two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia" we start talking about "more than an economy" but about "civic society"? The guy is literally a sentence away from begging for Affirmative Action for Whites.
Seriously, at least try to argue for institutional racism against Whites or for Asians in Silicon Valley. If there is any, it's from people who are pro-racist for Asians at least in the "a hard worker" field. When it turns around and means they elevate to CEOs, that's a problem?
"How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain ploughland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one’s country; is it hate of one’s uncountry? Then it’s not a good thing. It is simply self-love? That’s a good thing, but one mustn’t make a virtue of it, or a profession Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.” —Ursula K. Le Guin
India: where the Aryans are colored.
Your own narrow understanding of the word Asian is not representative of that of everyone, especially not those in the area of science.
The report where they got it from (see page 3): http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ascen...
I'm guessing you think they're classifying Indians as either white or the (even smaller than the Asian) amount represented by 'Black, Hispanic, Other'.
" “Asian” includes any citizen or noncitizen having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent. "