What you are saying in essence is not that there is nothing we can do about it, but rather you have a defeatist attitude. I gave prime examples of what can be done, you simply go to fallacy as an answer. Not much can happen as long as people like you are around claiming that any attempt to correct issues is futile. As I said before, I believe that attitude is worse than denial.
^This^! Nothing like going into a shop where everyone was a cowboy and trying to fix what's broken. Fixes that should take minutes take days, fixes that should take days take months, and often enough things need to be completely re-created.
If we are dumping shit everywhere and burning carbon because it's "cheap" we can do something about it. Stop burning carbon and move to renewable and nuclear energy is something right? Heavier regulation and requirements for recycling and fines for polluters is something right? Reducing the stripping forests is something right? Severely limiting strip mining is something right?
It's hard to say if you are trolling or just an idiot. Claiming there is nothing you can do about it is worse than claiming a problem does not exist in my opinion.
Where the statement's logic is bit broken, is that we no longer have dependencies on rivers for moving people and goods. While rivers are still economically cheaper than other modes of transport for "some" items, items can travel by other means (often much faster, sometimes much cheaper).
A secondary part of your statement would have to do with agriculture. This of course is impacted differently and harder by rivers drying up. That is why we have a Government that pays people not to farm, yet maintain their farms (not the only reason for subsidies mind you, just one.) Assuming all of the rivers don't have issues at the same time, the US can maintain agriculture.
Long winded answers aside, the statement is not completely true any more. Early last century, it would have had much more merit.
Duh, it is because they offer a simple, efficient, inexpensive way to exchange information with anybody in the world in a safe environment.
safe? Sorry, but that gave me a chuckle. If all you have to worry about is a mugger knifing you in a back alley, I guess you may find it safe. Most of us have a more broad definition of the word, and correctly so.
I'm not sure your references are right with the link you provided, however it is a good link. I'd recommend that everyone goes and reads it fully. That article is actually slamming the dolt that compared the NRA to the KKK on National TV. Lord I'm glad I avoid TV like a plague.
I don't think that would hold water in court. It's been a long time since I studied that type of case law, but there is a specific term for that type of contract. Given a couple hours in the law library I would have a solid case against that TOS.
The equivalent would be to give a contract to an autistic person taking 100% of their profits from their exceptional art talent, and having a statement of "my legal guardians agree to me signing this contract." The contract signed by only the autistic person is legally worth less than toilet paper. The contract is not valid because of that clause and I could sue for not only actual loss but some hefty damages.
Have to say it. 13 is too low of an age limit. It should be at least 16, which is the age of consent in the majority of states. 13 was fine in the early days, before we had all of the bots doing the leg work. Now, it should be higher and more restrictive.
Look at the bright side, it'll generate lots of revenue for someone to develop all of those restrictions into the bots.
Sorry, the article reeks of bias. No where in the article do they state how they come to their numbers conclusions, and there are numerous factors that would be involved in making those claims. Basics would be per/capita which of course they fail to mention. I'd be willing to bet that there are 20 times more robberies in China than there are in Kenya if you only looked at the raw numbers of robberies per year.
I already mentioned that many Americans are put on drugs (legal drugs) to keep them out of the medical system. Compared to Germany where a person would be actually treated for a mental illness we have a very different result in society.
I also mentioned the high amount of corruption in politics, which could play a heavy role. You would need to of course understand false flag operations, and consider that manchurian candidates are possible. To some, it may be stretch. To others, how many times do you see a coincidence before you begin to believe it's more than just a coincidence.
Outside of their initial claim and list, there is no discussion of any factors I mentioned above. I see this as bias made to sell, not a fact based article. See my comment regarding robberies in China above.
Actually C is as good as Python if you know what to code. With that said, some things in C and Python require a steep learning curve. Graphing for example, export/import to Excel, and animation are just a few. I have worked for over 15 years with Matlab/Simulink. I have looked at Mathcad and Mathematica as well, and think each has some benefits. But lets not compare C or Python to Matlab. It's like comparing VI to Word. Sure, you can edit text in both and function very well for you.. but generally we need to make things visually pleasing to an audience (and management) to be successful.
And in my opinion, I think it's easy to spot people that only know how to make pretty and lack theory. Sometimes they hold a spot in a group just to help make things appealing to the eye and not because they are astute with theory.
Matlab is exceptional, but of course has some cost. I believe that there are student copies much cheaper than commercial versions. The language is simple, yet quite advanced.
If you are not able to afford Matlab, or prefer home grown.. Linux with basic programming in C and xplot can do quite a lot.
Oh, and yes F&F was a political ploy you dolt! Demand letters 1-3 have released for over a year. Those three letters explain the exact purpose of the operation in clear language. Go read and stop watching TV. Or don't, I don't care.
The fox news group had no such stories, so I'm guessing you are accusing me of doing what you do. The story died out on most corporate media, no mention of the 2nd shooter on main stream media, no mention of the second bloody gas mask on main stream media.
If you really had a family friend die at the theater, I would think you want justice. Instead you press an emotional fallacy as an argument.
You conspiracy types really need to pull your heads out of asses and simply wake up.
All I have to say to that is - Bwuahahahaha you make me laugh. Notice how you ignore my comments regarding fast and furious and accuse me of being blind? No, you probably don't. Trust me, I have had my head out of my ass for a long time, which is why I have studied things like Fast and Furious. This is why I ask questions when the shooter at a theater worked in government sponsored psy ops and facts change in media over the course of a couple hours.
Look, I understand the amount of cognitive dissonance it causes when you find out that your Government is not innocent and does things which harm you to further an agenda. My years of enlightenment were during the Reagan times, and I've been awake ever since.
The implication of that is rather concerning. Why you ask? Simple. Fast and Furious makes it very obvious that removing Guns from Americans is a political agenda. The people running F&F did not care how many died or even who died to push that agenda (Don't confuse "people running" with operatives involved).
If you are not familiar with the suspicious nature of the Sikh temple shootings and Colorado theater shooting then you should do some homework.
If people in power are pushing that agenda have been proven to let people die to further that agenda, the last thing you should do is allow it to happen.
This has nothing to do however with investigating how this person obtained guns (legally vs. illegally), or if we should restrict guns for people on medications like Prozac and other drugs which have nasty side effects like loss of emotion, fits of rage, etc..
The rash of these events this year is frightening, but before this year it was as rare as Norway.
Numerous facts go into the disparate numbers. First, we have a very corrupt set of politicians in the US. We have numerous people put on medications that are known to cause severe psychological reactions who should not be on these medications. (Prozac for example). We have an economy in shambles, and probably the most obvious is that we have a larger population than Norway.
Come now, have you been so fully brainwashed that you believe that Guns are the problem? Perhaps, but you should really try thinking harder and more clearly. Guns are not the problem, society is the problem. Perhaps we could even go further and say that our government is the problem.
Perhaps you should give a bit of thought to the possibility that this was instigated and or run by the government. This event on the surface seems to be as odd on the surface as the Sikh temple shooting and Colorado movie theater shooting. If you don't believe that your government would harm you to fulfill an agenda you are ignorant. It has happened and will continue to happen as long as people like yourself choose to ignore it (see operation fast and furious for example)
Get familiar with the Hegelian dialectic and false flag operations. They are common if you know what to look for. The problem is really that people want to believe that their government is working for their benefit and would never harm them. The truth causes a severe amount of cognitive dissonance.
There is a serious communication failure here. I considered the possibility that it's a problem on my end failing to understand, but I don't think so.
I on the other hand don't believe I'm failing to provide information. When you stated that there are no atheists in federal prison as an example of atheism being morally better than religion, it was a false argument. The argument falls in to several categories of fallacy. I gave several examples of how the argument was false in my first post. In my mind, that ends that portion of the argument. To continue to argue the point after it was shown to be a fallacy is not logical.
There was and is no intent to be cryptic, but rather honest. I don't mean this to be a dick, but I sincerely have the expectation that someone discussing the morality differences between atheism and religion has some education about at least one major Religion. I don't see that as an unreasonable expectation since it would be like arguing French language is better than German language, while having never learned anything about the German language.
You claim a basic understanding of the concept of a Noble Lie. Skimming the surface of the concept of the Noble Lie does not give you the basis for my position. It's like saying I know what numbers are, and can add subtract and multiply, therefor you should be able to explain integration to me in a few minutes of posting. It's not quite that simple, and can not be made that simple.
All I can say is... WHAT THE FUCK?
Did I just have a stoke? Am I suddenly brain damaged and I'm completely misinterpreting those words? Or did you actually just make the bathit-insane assertion that gouging someone's eyes out is ok and "no real damage done" so long as the victim is an atheist?
You do understand that if I'm a Buddhist and kill someone, that I'm not only punished in this life but every life after until I make up for my behavior correct? You do understand that if I'm Christian and kill someone that I spend eternity in hell right? If I'm Jewish and kill someone I forfeit my life, am eternally damned by God, and my family is cursed for 7 generations right?
You also understand that if I'm Buddhist and commit a crime and am not caught, I still have consequences to my actions because of Karma. If I'm Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, I still have to face God for what I have done.
Whereby if I'm atheist, I do my time in jail and go home. There is nothing more since there is no eternal life, there is no Hell, and no such thing as Karma. That is what an atheist by definition believes.
If you don't know what I'm talking about in these few paragraphs you would need to pursue knowledge regarding the teachings and laws of Religions. A lack of knowledge regarding Religion can not be remedied by me. You would need to pursue the knowledge on your own (or take my word as true, in which case it may be slightly off the mark. I'm not sitting with a stack of reference books writing white papers. I'm commenting to someone on/.)
In my studies that difference in beliefs leads to a a pretty large gap in morality. That point of view can be backed by Socrates, Plato, Marx, etc.. etc... It leads to very different ways in society, where as long as you have the money and power to get away with it... well, I'm sure you can find numerous examples of that happening.
WHAT concept? I can only guess it's a reference to what came immediately before it, which was your utterly bizarre comment apparently indicating that rape is fine and dandy, so long as you only rape atheists.
You admit being ignorant regarding religion, so why do you invent things that are simply false as an argument? I'm really quite stumped. More on that in a moment.
The base Religion has no..... WHAT? I have no clue what "teachings" you are trying to say those "base religions" don't have
The reason for the post is that there is scientific discussion to be had. Slashdot is not just about computers, but science and technology as well.
The nature of the article, and corruption of course, increases the amount of discussion. Pointing out corruption is in general a way of beefing up the post count on the thread. I kind of get your point, but, but will counter with the fact that numerous people come here posting information from those corrupted sources and claim fracking is not harmful. In my opinion, those two points wash each other out.
Well now, that does come off as racist. Namely because it completely avoids the reasons we have black on black killings, and also completely avoids reality. This is why I mentioned drugs previously, very intentionally.
If there are no jobs, what do you do to survive? What does anyone do? What is historically done? They turn to illegal activities to survive. This has an echoing effect in communities for many reasons, and you have given me no suggestion that you would even begin to comprehend what those echos would be so I won't bother trying to explain. If you are interested, there is a tremendous amount of literature on the subject and you can go study.
Claiming that gun ownership does not impact crime is not true. I will grant that there have been some conflicting facts printed, however.. in the US there have been numerous places that have banned guns only to revert those laws as gun crimes sky rocketed. As with above there is plenty of literature on the subject, and you can find it if you wish.
Since there are conflicting facts reported, I have to go with common sense and experience. I didn't grow up in the safest streets and was not an angel by any means. I personally never did a B&E, but know people that have. When you know a house has guns, it's generally avoided unless you know that nobody is home. If you are not sure, you only need to hear the click of a hammer locking to know you better run your ass off. If there was no fear of a gun, I'm probably bigger and meaner than the home owner. I probably have a bat or crow bar and one or two people with me, and what pray tell does a 55 year old guy have to defend himself from two or three young men breaking in? Nothing, so at best if they call 911 they are victims of smash and grabs. They probably take a few lumps to persuade them not to call 911 in the future to boot.
So yeah, common sense and experience has told me in addition to facts that guns do prevent crimes. This would even be true in the high and mighty land of Norway, but you probably have to visit some neighborhoods which are not so well off to see if it's true.
If you would like to present any evidence connecting atheism to any of the above, if you would like to present an argument connecting atheism to any of the above, if you would like to present a theory connecting atheism to any of the above, then I am open to hearing it.
The concept is way too lengthy to try and post, but I can point you in the direction I think works best. Study Plato's Republic. If you understand what the "Noble Lie" really is, and how it's used you will see that it's a critical piece of society. The difference between Theist and Atheist is this: There is no real damage done to an Atheist no how severe the crime. This same concept is not true of any Religion be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, etc...
Now before you start to nit-pick about Jews and goyim or Muslim and infidel, lets make sure the distinctions are clear. The base Religion has no such teachings, those are corruptions introduced much later in time. Zoom out as far as you possible can, and you should begin to wonder if those corruptions were intentional.. and in a sense a stepping stone to atheism.
Lastly, here is where I stated that you were wrong.
To cite one easy and strong example, atheists are virtually non-existent among the U.S. Federal prison population.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In US society today, how many people are jailed for bribery?
The context following my message should have made it abundantly clear where I was stating that you were wrong. You gave an absolutely false argument to prove your point, and I showed that it was false.
I'm to lazy to look up the details but there were numerous reports, and not 20 years ago, from Australia where gun laws changed things pretty drastically. This was in addition to the bans on many gun types.. Something along the lines of bolts having to be stored in separate locations from guns, and bullets in another location.
I (obviously) don't live in Australia so of course am subject to media biases. I do remember reading tons of links and watching videos of upset Aussies that had been robbed at gunpoint with no way of defense. In one case, the owner had a gun but was robbed at gun point after the burglars spent a long while trying to get in.
Your last statement is my point exactly. Blaming guns is not smart, when it's not guns that cause the problem. From a story yesterday in California, baseball bats killed more people annually than Guns. We don't ban baseball bats, yet we bicker about gun laws. It's not logical in my opinion. Guns are not the problem. Society has issues, and people will resort to any method of harming someone once they believe that it's a good idea to harm someone.
Right away you open with a fallacy. How is it punishment for a business to pay tax? Do they not use the same roads as you use? Do they not have access to ports? Do they not have a military that protects our borders and keeps them safe from pirating and privateers? Do they not have access to the court system?
If a manufacturing plant opens next door to you, you don't believe that they should be responsible for paying regulators to make sure they are not dumping to much pollution on you? Is it your fault they opened and you should pay? Come now, the point you brought up is simply not logical.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In US society today, how many people are jailed for bribery? How many politicians accept bribes? How many Golden parachute people have been jailed for embezzlement?
It's foolish to think that everyone in Jail deserves to be there, and everyone outside of jail is not deserving. We have just become ignorant to what is really going on.. or we simply don't care (perhaps feel defeated).
So you give an example, but it's not realistic and very much biased. Try again if you wish.
Why do you keep circling back to the same point which I have shown twice now as invalid? You and I both know that companies make money, so have profit. That zero number that you point to is due to loopholes, and not real. As I mentioned previously, the root cause must be addressed and fixed, stop wasting time on symptoms.
I stated in my first post that if things were working as designed, the Tax rate could be lowered. The reason that the rate has been inflated to 35% is because too many don't pay their fair share. Again, look at the root cause and not a symptom.
Your last paragraph does show a small problem, but you also filled it full of fallacy to ignore the root cause (who gets to decide? Are the deciders bribable?)
If a business is large enough to have divisions, like GE does then each division would be taxed differently. Up until 30 years ago, this was done without too much fuss. Fiddling should be illegal, just like it should be illegal for you to fiddle with your income. Imagine what the tax attorney would say if you said "I know I made 100,000 last year, but it's really only 40 dollars after groceries, gas, laundry, etc..." You would be put in jail for violating the law!. Why do you want businesses to be able to avoid the law? The same laws are bound to you in society should be the same laws that bind a company correct? Have you been brainwashed in to believing that certain people/businesses should be bound by no laws? Honestly, there is an active element in society that is doing just that.. though I'm not sure you will see it.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are saying in essence is not that there is nothing we can do about it, but rather you have a defeatist attitude. I gave prime examples of what can be done, you simply go to fallacy as an answer. Not much can happen as long as people like you are around claiming that any attempt to correct issues is futile. As I said before, I believe that attitude is worse than denial.
^This^! Nothing like going into a shop where everyone was a cowboy and trying to fix what's broken. Fixes that should take minutes take days, fixes that should take days take months, and often enough things need to be completely re-created.
Yes standards matter.
If we are dumping shit everywhere and burning carbon because it's "cheap" we can do something about it. Stop burning carbon and move to renewable and nuclear energy is something right? Heavier regulation and requirements for recycling and fines for polluters is something right? Reducing the stripping forests is something right? Severely limiting strip mining is something right?
It's hard to say if you are trolling or just an idiot. Claiming there is nothing you can do about it is worse than claiming a problem does not exist in my opinion.
Where the statement's logic is bit broken, is that we no longer have dependencies on rivers for moving people and goods. While rivers are still economically cheaper than other modes of transport for "some" items, items can travel by other means (often much faster, sometimes much cheaper).
A secondary part of your statement would have to do with agriculture. This of course is impacted differently and harder by rivers drying up. That is why we have a Government that pays people not to farm, yet maintain their farms (not the only reason for subsidies mind you, just one.) Assuming all of the rivers don't have issues at the same time, the US can maintain agriculture.
Long winded answers aside, the statement is not completely true any more. Early last century, it would have had much more merit.
Duh, it is because they offer a simple, efficient, inexpensive way to exchange information with anybody in the world in a safe environment.
safe ? Sorry, but that gave me a chuckle. If all you have to worry about is a mugger knifing you in a back alley, I guess you may find it safe. Most of us have a more broad definition of the word, and correctly so.
I'm not sure your references are right with the link you provided, however it is a good link. I'd recommend that everyone goes and reads it fully. That article is actually slamming the dolt that compared the NRA to the KKK on National TV. Lord I'm glad I avoid TV like a plague.
I don't think that would hold water in court. It's been a long time since I studied that type of case law, but there is a specific term for that type of contract. Given a couple hours in the law library I would have a solid case against that TOS.
The equivalent would be to give a contract to an autistic person taking 100% of their profits from their exceptional art talent, and having a statement of "my legal guardians agree to me signing this contract." The contract signed by only the autistic person is legally worth less than toilet paper. The contract is not valid because of that clause and I could sue for not only actual loss but some hefty damages.
Have to say it. 13 is too low of an age limit. It should be at least 16, which is the age of consent in the majority of states. 13 was fine in the early days, before we had all of the bots doing the leg work. Now, it should be higher and more restrictive.
Look at the bright side, it'll generate lots of revenue for someone to develop all of those restrictions into the bots.
Sorry, the article reeks of bias. No where in the article do they state how they come to their numbers conclusions, and there are numerous factors that would be involved in making those claims. Basics would be per/capita which of course they fail to mention. I'd be willing to bet that there are 20 times more robberies in China than there are in Kenya if you only looked at the raw numbers of robberies per year.
I already mentioned that many Americans are put on drugs (legal drugs) to keep them out of the medical system. Compared to Germany where a person would be actually treated for a mental illness we have a very different result in society.
I also mentioned the high amount of corruption in politics, which could play a heavy role. You would need to of course understand false flag operations, and consider that manchurian candidates are possible. To some, it may be stretch. To others, how many times do you see a coincidence before you begin to believe it's more than just a coincidence.
Outside of their initial claim and list, there is no discussion of any factors I mentioned above. I see this as bias made to sell, not a fact based article. See my comment regarding robberies in China above.
Actually C is as good as Python if you know what to code. With that said, some things in C and Python require a steep learning curve. Graphing for example, export/import to Excel, and animation are just a few. I have worked for over 15 years with Matlab/Simulink. I have looked at Mathcad and Mathematica as well, and think each has some benefits. But lets not compare C or Python to Matlab. It's like comparing VI to Word. Sure, you can edit text in both and function very well for you.. but generally we need to make things visually pleasing to an audience (and management) to be successful.
And in my opinion, I think it's easy to spot people that only know how to make pretty and lack theory. Sometimes they hold a spot in a group just to help make things appealing to the eye and not because they are astute with theory.
Matlab is exceptional, but of course has some cost. I believe that there are student copies much cheaper than commercial versions. The language is simple, yet quite advanced.
If you are not able to afford Matlab, or prefer home grown.. Linux with basic programming in C and xplot can do quite a lot.
Oh, and yes F&F was a political ploy you dolt! Demand letters 1-3 have released for over a year. Those three letters explain the exact purpose of the operation in clear language. Go read and stop watching TV. Or don't, I don't care.
The fox news group had no such stories, so I'm guessing you are accusing me of doing what you do. The story died out on most corporate media, no mention of the 2nd shooter on main stream media, no mention of the second bloody gas mask on main stream media.
If you really had a family friend die at the theater, I would think you want justice. Instead you press an emotional fallacy as an argument.
You conspiracy types really need to pull your heads out of asses and simply wake up.
All I have to say to that is - Bwuahahahaha you make me laugh. Notice how you ignore my comments regarding fast and furious and accuse me of being blind? No, you probably don't. Trust me, I have had my head out of my ass for a long time, which is why I have studied things like Fast and Furious. This is why I ask questions when the shooter at a theater worked in government sponsored psy ops and facts change in media over the course of a couple hours.
Look, I understand the amount of cognitive dissonance it causes when you find out that your Government is not innocent and does things which harm you to further an agenda. My years of enlightenment were during the Reagan times, and I've been awake ever since.
The implication of that is rather concerning. Why you ask? Simple. Fast and Furious makes it very obvious that removing Guns from Americans is a political agenda. The people running F&F did not care how many died or even who died to push that agenda (Don't confuse "people running" with operatives involved).
If you are not familiar with the suspicious nature of the Sikh temple shootings and Colorado theater shooting then you should do some homework.
If people in power are pushing that agenda have been proven to let people die to further that agenda, the last thing you should do is allow it to happen.
This has nothing to do however with investigating how this person obtained guns (legally vs. illegally), or if we should restrict guns for people on medications like Prozac and other drugs which have nasty side effects like loss of emotion, fits of rage, etc..
The rash of these events this year is frightening, but before this year it was as rare as Norway.
Numerous facts go into the disparate numbers. First, we have a very corrupt set of politicians in the US. We have numerous people put on medications that are known to cause severe psychological reactions who should not be on these medications. (Prozac for example). We have an economy in shambles, and probably the most obvious is that we have a larger population than Norway.
Come now, have you been so fully brainwashed that you believe that Guns are the problem? Perhaps, but you should really try thinking harder and more clearly. Guns are not the problem, society is the problem. Perhaps we could even go further and say that our government is the problem.
Perhaps you should give a bit of thought to the possibility that this was instigated and or run by the government. This event on the surface seems to be as odd on the surface as the Sikh temple shooting and Colorado movie theater shooting. If you don't believe that your government would harm you to fulfill an agenda you are ignorant. It has happened and will continue to happen as long as people like yourself choose to ignore it (see operation fast and furious for example)
Get familiar with the Hegelian dialectic and false flag operations. They are common if you know what to look for. The problem is really that people want to believe that their government is working for their benefit and would never harm them. The truth causes a severe amount of cognitive dissonance.
There is a serious communication failure here. I considered the possibility that it's a problem on my end failing to understand, but I don't think so.
I on the other hand don't believe I'm failing to provide information. When you stated that there are no atheists in federal prison as an example of atheism being morally better than religion, it was a false argument. The argument falls in to several categories of fallacy. I gave several examples of how the argument was false in my first post. In my mind, that ends that portion of the argument. To continue to argue the point after it was shown to be a fallacy is not logical.
There was and is no intent to be cryptic, but rather honest. I don't mean this to be a dick, but I sincerely have the expectation that someone discussing the morality differences between atheism and religion has some education about at least one major Religion. I don't see that as an unreasonable expectation since it would be like arguing French language is better than German language, while having never learned anything about the German language.
You claim a basic understanding of the concept of a Noble Lie. Skimming the surface of the concept of the Noble Lie does not give you the basis for my position. It's like saying I know what numbers are, and can add subtract and multiply, therefor you should be able to explain integration to me in a few minutes of posting. It's not quite that simple, and can not be made that simple.
All I can say is... WHAT THE FUCK? Did I just have a stoke? Am I suddenly brain damaged and I'm completely misinterpreting those words? Or did you actually just make the bathit-insane assertion that gouging someone's eyes out is ok and "no real damage done" so long as the victim is an atheist?
You do understand that if I'm a Buddhist and kill someone, that I'm not only punished in this life but every life after until I make up for my behavior correct? You do understand that if I'm Christian and kill someone that I spend eternity in hell right? If I'm Jewish and kill someone I forfeit my life, am eternally damned by God, and my family is cursed for 7 generations right?
You also understand that if I'm Buddhist and commit a crime and am not caught, I still have consequences to my actions because of Karma. If I'm Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, I still have to face God for what I have done.
Whereby if I'm atheist, I do my time in jail and go home. There is nothing more since there is no eternal life, there is no Hell, and no such thing as Karma. That is what an atheist by definition believes.
If you don't know what I'm talking about in these few paragraphs you would need to pursue knowledge regarding the teachings and laws of Religions. A lack of knowledge regarding Religion can not be remedied by me. You would need to pursue the knowledge on your own (or take my word as true, in which case it may be slightly off the mark. I'm not sitting with a stack of reference books writing white papers. I'm commenting to someone on /.)
In my studies that difference in beliefs leads to a a pretty large gap in morality. That point of view can be backed by Socrates, Plato, Marx, etc.. etc... It leads to very different ways in society, where as long as you have the money and power to get away with it... well, I'm sure you can find numerous examples of that happening.
WHAT concept? I can only guess it's a reference to what came immediately before it, which was your utterly bizarre comment apparently indicating that rape is fine and dandy, so long as you only rape atheists.
You admit being ignorant regarding religion, so why do you invent things that are simply false as an argument? I'm really quite stumped. More on that in a moment.
The base Religion has no..... WHAT? I have no clue what "teachings" you are trying to say those "base religions" don't have
I don't mean that to
So you responded to the wrong post, but still defend your position? Read my example and think about the answer.
The reason for the post is that there is scientific discussion to be had. Slashdot is not just about computers, but science and technology as well.
The nature of the article, and corruption of course, increases the amount of discussion. Pointing out corruption is in general a way of beefing up the post count on the thread. I kind of get your point, but, but will counter with the fact that numerous people come here posting information from those corrupted sources and claim fracking is not harmful. In my opinion, those two points wash each other out.
Just grab some popcorn and watch the show.
Well now, that does come off as racist. Namely because it completely avoids the reasons we have black on black killings, and also completely avoids reality. This is why I mentioned drugs previously, very intentionally.
If there are no jobs, what do you do to survive? What does anyone do? What is historically done? They turn to illegal activities to survive. This has an echoing effect in communities for many reasons, and you have given me no suggestion that you would even begin to comprehend what those echos would be so I won't bother trying to explain. If you are interested, there is a tremendous amount of literature on the subject and you can go study.
Claiming that gun ownership does not impact crime is not true. I will grant that there have been some conflicting facts printed, however.. in the US there have been numerous places that have banned guns only to revert those laws as gun crimes sky rocketed. As with above there is plenty of literature on the subject, and you can find it if you wish.
Since there are conflicting facts reported, I have to go with common sense and experience. I didn't grow up in the safest streets and was not an angel by any means. I personally never did a B&E, but know people that have. When you know a house has guns, it's generally avoided unless you know that nobody is home. If you are not sure, you only need to hear the click of a hammer locking to know you better run your ass off. If there was no fear of a gun, I'm probably bigger and meaner than the home owner. I probably have a bat or crow bar and one or two people with me, and what pray tell does a 55 year old guy have to defend himself from two or three young men breaking in? Nothing, so at best if they call 911 they are victims of smash and grabs. They probably take a few lumps to persuade them not to call 911 in the future to boot.
So yeah, common sense and experience has told me in addition to facts that guns do prevent crimes. This would even be true in the high and mighty land of Norway, but you probably have to visit some neighborhoods which are not so well off to see if it's true.
If you would like to present any evidence connecting atheism to any of the above, if you would like to present an argument connecting atheism to any of the above, if you would like to present a theory connecting atheism to any of the above, then I am open to hearing it.
The concept is way too lengthy to try and post, but I can point you in the direction I think works best. Study Plato's Republic. If you understand what the "Noble Lie" really is, and how it's used you will see that it's a critical piece of society. The difference between Theist and Atheist is this: There is no real damage done to an Atheist no how severe the crime. This same concept is not true of any Religion be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, etc...
Now before you start to nit-pick about Jews and goyim or Muslim and infidel, lets make sure the distinctions are clear. The base Religion has no such teachings, those are corruptions introduced much later in time. Zoom out as far as you possible can, and you should begin to wonder if those corruptions were intentional.. and in a sense a stepping stone to atheism.
Lastly, here is where I stated that you were wrong.
To cite one easy and strong example, atheists are virtually non-existent among the U.S. Federal prison population.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In US society today, how many people are jailed for bribery?
The context following my message should have made it abundantly clear where I was stating that you were wrong. You gave an absolutely false argument to prove your point, and I showed that it was false.
I'm to lazy to look up the details but there were numerous reports, and not 20 years ago, from Australia where gun laws changed things pretty drastically. This was in addition to the bans on many gun types.. Something along the lines of bolts having to be stored in separate locations from guns, and bullets in another location.
I (obviously) don't live in Australia so of course am subject to media biases. I do remember reading tons of links and watching videos of upset Aussies that had been robbed at gunpoint with no way of defense. In one case, the owner had a gun but was robbed at gun point after the burglars spent a long while trying to get in.
Your last statement is my point exactly. Blaming guns is not smart, when it's not guns that cause the problem. From a story yesterday in California, baseball bats killed more people annually than Guns. We don't ban baseball bats, yet we bicker about gun laws. It's not logical in my opinion. Guns are not the problem. Society has issues, and people will resort to any method of harming someone once they believe that it's a good idea to harm someone.
Right away you open with a fallacy. How is it punishment for a business to pay tax? Do they not use the same roads as you use? Do they not have access to ports? Do they not have a military that protects our borders and keeps them safe from pirating and privateers? Do they not have access to the court system?
If a manufacturing plant opens next door to you, you don't believe that they should be responsible for paying regulators to make sure they are not dumping to much pollution on you? Is it your fault they opened and you should pay? Come now, the point you brought up is simply not logical.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In US society today, how many people are jailed for bribery? How many politicians accept bribes? How many Golden parachute people have been jailed for embezzlement?
It's foolish to think that everyone in Jail deserves to be there, and everyone outside of jail is not deserving. We have just become ignorant to what is really going on.. or we simply don't care (perhaps feel defeated).
So you give an example, but it's not realistic and very much biased. Try again if you wish.
Why do you keep circling back to the same point which I have shown twice now as invalid? You and I both know that companies make money, so have profit. That zero number that you point to is due to loopholes, and not real. As I mentioned previously, the root cause must be addressed and fixed, stop wasting time on symptoms.
I stated in my first post that if things were working as designed, the Tax rate could be lowered. The reason that the rate has been inflated to 35% is because too many don't pay their fair share. Again, look at the root cause and not a symptom.
Your last paragraph does show a small problem, but you also filled it full of fallacy to ignore the root cause (who gets to decide? Are the deciders bribable?)
If a business is large enough to have divisions, like GE does then each division would be taxed differently. Up until 30 years ago, this was done without too much fuss. Fiddling should be illegal, just like it should be illegal for you to fiddle with your income. Imagine what the tax attorney would say if you said "I know I made 100,000 last year, but it's really only 40 dollars after groceries, gas, laundry, etc..." You would be put in jail for violating the law!. Why do you want businesses to be able to avoid the law? The same laws are bound to you in society should be the same laws that bind a company correct? Have you been brainwashed in to believing that certain people/businesses should be bound by no laws? Honestly, there is an active element in society that is doing just that.. though I'm not sure you will see it.