So you're advancing the idea that because some people who used to own slaves eventually voted to abolish it, those people should be commended even though they first failed to reject slavery as evil when they had the first opportunity, thereby tolerating and partaking in an institution that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives?
I'm not buying it.
I am pretty sure the same logic can be applied to you... What is stopping you from boycotting goods produced literally with modern slave labor in stead of buying items that pay people a decent living wage? Chances are you buy the cheapest product like most people, and because it is socially acceptable, you too support modern slavery. Now if someone might not be completely aware of this dynamic, this individual changing their behavior in favor of support of human rights is now suddenly not commendable because they once enjoyed a higher standard of living at the expense of others? I argue that you yourself are doing the very same thing right now, only with a lot less awareness of how your habits cause human suffering. You should probably check your judgment lest ye be judged. IMO some one doing wrong, admitting it, and changing their behavior shows a lot more strength than the person that pretends they aren't perpetrators (you). I'm not talking about sweat shops. I am talking about literal slavery. Did you know more African American males are in forced servitude now than ever before in US history?
First, what logic can be applied to me? OP said we should praise white Europeans for abolishing slavery, and I said no, you can't claim credit for eventually getting rid of an evil you started. Then you come along and say "the same logic can be applied to you, you support slavery." You're not responding to anything I said with your attack. The only thing I said was white people don't get credit for abolishing slavery after they ruined so many lives with it.Second, your attack is a lot of unsubstantiated garbage. Please find common products sold in the US that are made " literally with modern slave labor." Be specific, the fact that clothes come from a country that is known to use slave labor is not evidence it was produced with slave labor. Further, clothes is a category, not a specific product. You will quickly see that your over-generalization breaks down when you get specific, because if there were products known to be created with forced labor, they wouldn't be for sale in the US for the public and political outrage, not to mention the damage it would do any US company to be associated with actual forced labor. And to reiterate your point, we're not talking about sweat shops, we're talking about a product made with forced servitude of a human being without recompense for the profit of a corporation, sold in the US and that I might reasonably buy, since you're so adamant that I'm supporting slavery in the modern age, which again was an attack you just lobbed out of nowhere, because it was not in response to anything I said. And finally, if we just accept your charge at face value, do you realize that the argument that developed nations still indirectly support slavery in the developing world strengthens my point that there's nothing prideful about the western world's track record on slavery? First of all this was not an attack but simply applying the same standards to you, that you casually apply to an entire race of people (gee that's not at all racist). White people didn't invent slavery, additionally even if you buy this disingenuous presumption by no means did the same people who brought the system into use, end it. People were born into the system, realized its flaws, had the power to change the system, and changed it accordingly. Just the same way you were born into a system that uses forced labor and remain ignorant of it while criticizing an entire race of people for the same injustice. As far as slavery in the "western world", I think you will find if you bother to look that slavery is STILL a global phenomenon, not just reserved for the west. A right doesn't erase a wrong and a wrong doesn't erase a right. Millions of people gave their lives to see that slavery was ended, and at great economic cost. Discounting that is quite arrogant and an affront to the people who actually struggled to end slavery. As far as products using forced labor in the US, you are quite incorrect. Products produced with forced captive labor are sold and manufactured all over the US. Here is an abridged list of corporations that profit directly from forced labor: BANKS: American General Financial Group, American Express Company, Bank of America, Community Financial Services Corporation, Credit Card Coalition, Credit Union National Association, Inc., Fidelity Inestments, Harris Trust & Savings Bank, Household International, LaSalle National Bank, J.P. Morgan & Company, Non-Bank Funds Transmitters Group
ENERGY PRODUCERS/OIL: American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Corporation, ARCO, BP America, Inc., Caltex Petroleum, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Phillips Petroleum Company.
ENERGY PRODUCERS/UTILITIES: American Electric Power Association, American Gas Association, Center for Energy and Economic Development, Commonwealth Edison Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Independent Power Producers of New York, Koch Industries, Inc., Mid-American Energy Company, Natural Gas Supply Association, PG&E Corporation/PG&E National Energy Group, U.S. Generating Company. INSURANCE: Alliance of American Insurers, Allstate Insurance Company, American Council of Life Insurance, American Insurance Association, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Corporation, Coalition for Asbestos Justice, (This organization was formed in October 2000 to explore new judicial approaches to asbestos litigation." Its members include ACE-USA, Chubb & Son, CNA service mark companies, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Kemper Insurance Companies, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Counsel to the coalition is Victor E. Schwartz of the law firm of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C., a longtime ALEC ally.) Fortis Health, GEICO, Golden Rule Insurance Company, Guarantee Trust Life Insurance, MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company, National Association of Independent Insurers, Nationwide Insurance/National Financial, State Farm Insurance Companies, Wausau Insurance Companies, Zurich Insurance. PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbott Laboratories, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Corporation, Eli Lilly & Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., Merck & Company, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Pharmacia Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, Smith, Kline & French, WYETH, a division of American Home Products Corporation. MANUFACTURING:American Plastics Council, Archer Daniels Midland Corporation, AutoZone, Inc. (aftermarket automotive parts), Cargill, Inc., Caterpillar, Inc., Chlorine Chemistry Council, Deere & Company, Fruit of the Loom, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inland Steel Industries, Inc., International Game Technology, International Paper, Johnson & Johnson, Keystone Automotive Industries, Motorola, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Sara Lee Corporation.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: AT&T, Ameritech, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., GTE Corporation, MCI, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, SBC Communications, Inc., Sprint, UST Public Affairs, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc. TRANSPORTATION: Air Transport Association of America, American Trucking Association, The Boeing Company, United Airlines, United Parcel Service (UPS). OTHER U.S. COMPANIES: Amway Corporation, Cabot Sedgewick, Cendant Corporation, Corrections Corporation of America, Dresser Industries, Federated Department Stores, International Gold Corporation, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Microsoft Corporation, Newmont Mining Corporation, Quaker Oats, Sears, Roebuck & Company, Service Corporation International, Taxpayers Network, Inc., Turner Construction, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
ORGANIZATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS: Adolph Coors Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, Bell & Howell Foundation, Carthage Foundation, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, ELW Foundation, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Heartland Institute of Chicago, The Heritage Foundation, Iowans for Tax Relief, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, National Pork Producers Association, National Rifle Association, Olin Foundation, Roe Foundation, Scaiffe Foundation, Shell Oil Company Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Steel Recycling Institute, Tax Education Support Organization, Texas Educational Foundation, UPS Foundation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/14/928611/-INSOURCING-Identifying-businesses-involved-in-prison-labor-or-supporting-those-who-arehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.htmlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2013/05/corporations-using-prison-labor-to-grab.htmlhttp://www.alternet.org/story/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_laborNot one of those links provides any evidence that any products I buy was made with slave labor. In a desperate attempt at relevancy, and because your original point has no merit whatsoever, you've posted links about prison labor, which is not slave labor. I am in no way defending prison labor, I find the practice a terrible confluence of political corruption and corporatism, but prison labor is in no way slave labor by virtue of the fact that you have a choice about going to prison by not breaking the law. As to your original claim that I am supporting slave labor through the products I buy, you have nothing, which is why you are grasping at straws. Further, you have not provided a shred of evidence that any of the corporations you posted use slave labor except your insinuation that they do. As for the rest of your response, since you cannot follow simple logical arguments, I'm going to have to disengage you. You did not address my points, but rather continue to address points I did not make. For example, OP says white Europeans should be commended for their actions on slavery. Note that OP starts the thread by generalizing on behalf of an entire race of people ( which you then attribute the generalization based on race to me). I point out the logic fail of giving credit to a whole race of people who first tolerated the evil institution they eventually abolished, for which OP seeks commendation for. Then you come in telling me I support slavery (seriously, wtf?) and that white people didn't start slavery (irrelevant and my point was misunderstood by you- it doesn't matter what race started the practice of slavery, the fact is that at one point European society did not have institutionalized slave labor, and then at some point it begins, and when it begins, people tolerate it-- that is what I mean by the start of slavery in Europe, not that white people started slavery). Then later you state "by no means did the same people who brought the system into use, end it", which you still fail to realize REITERATES MY ORIGINAL POINT, which you then proceed to argue against. For these reasons and the fact that you have not posted anything meriting further engagement and I do not anticipate you will, I'm out. Good day, and good luck to you.  |
|
|
|
In science, we use experiments to prove something. Until now there is no experiment to prove the existence of God.
Actually, I beg to differ.. Allow me to experiment.. allow me to chop off your arm so we can put the bit we chopped off into a medical deep freeze box, whilst we use a curlian camera to prove to you that, in the spirit of thing's, we can show you where your arm WAS by photographing the aura of where the missing bit of your arm WAS. Now allow me to sew arm back on, without anesthesia, and allow the reader to hear you scream for god. Hows that for experiment no:1? This is why religious folks aren't allowed to be in charge any more. There was once a time when religion and government was closely intertwined. It was called the Dark Ages. |
|
|
|
No need to worry, we're all gonna be safe thanks to this. It's starting to be clear in my mind that they brought this disease here to be able to manage it in order to re-introduce it to the enemy elements of the US. Hopefully, dissidents are above the cut.
I don't see the conspiracy here you do. The CDC already has samples of Ebola, it doesn't need to be "brought here" to be managed. Further, that doesn't even make sense, how bringing it here would allow us to "manage" it so it can be introduced elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed  How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. That's not how atheists or science works. |
|
|
|
Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is "the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically)
Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread.
The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution.
Consent is impossible because there is no way for me to grant consent even if I wanted to. I don't grant consent by paying taxes because I get threatened with jail or worse if I don't pay. And I don't grant consent by voting because I am not granted an exemption from the laws if I choose not to vote. Nor am I only subject to the laws of the candidate I voted for. And even if I did vote for the winning candidate, the voting was done in secret so there is no way for me to show that I consented. Just research what the government's own definition of citizen is. It is someone that consents to the authority of government in exchange for protection. Well, using that very definition, none of us are citizens. Newborns are not capable of granting consent and the government has repeatedly said that they are not under any obligation to protect you. You're taking your unwillingness to grant explicit consent to a government you don't approve of and saying it's proof there can be no consent. I'm not talking about you granting explicit consent, I'm not sure there even is such a thing. I'm talking about the justification of the government in claiming it has consent, which because it does so, creates implicit consent if you stay here. The Founder's claimed consent of the governed in the DoI, and therefore anyone who decided to live under their rule was automatically granting implicit consent because that was stated to be how the government was founded. (In fact, they claimed all governments derive their power from consent of the governed, and the DoI was their notification that they withdrew it from the king. The revolution was them enforcing it). With how angry the public is at Washington today, there are still enough people who agree that the government has consent of the governed that it makes the government and American society stable. Whether you agree with everything the government does or nothing it does, you grant it consent and recognize it's authority by living in its jurisdiction because you're not forced to stay here. The agreement is implicit. This is how it works; as long as you're here, there are penalties for breaking the laws even when you don't agree with them. If the government doesn't have your individual consent, that's not of much consequence, you can withdraw it by leaving. But if you don't, you can't claim it doesn't have your consent because it does. And if you choose to stay, you're bound by the laws created by the majority. When there are enough people who choose to withdraw their consent, a revolution happens, either violent or not. I'm not justifying the argument, I'm just explaining the philosophy and logic it's based on. I'm a libertarian and I hate most of the stuff the government does and the way it spends my taxes. But I'm implicitly giving consent because I'm still here. Of course I only pay the taxes out of threat of prison, but the taxes are still "voluntary" because I don't have to live here; I could move and renounce my citizenship and the government no longer has a claim on my income for tax purposes. Because I'm free to do that and choose not to, I give consent to the government and "voluntarily" pay taxes. You staying is giving implicit consent; that's the bargain. Once you choose to accept the bargain, you don't have absolute freedom to decide which rules to follow and which not. Government has overstepped its role. I believe the only legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. But it's not gotten to the point where I would leave. The government can, and does, claim my consent. |
|
|
|
So you're advancing the idea that because some people who used to own slaves eventually voted to abolish it, those people should be commended even though they first failed to reject slavery as evil when they had the first opportunity, thereby tolerating and partaking in an institution that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives?
I'm not buying it.
I am pretty sure the same logic can be applied to you... What is stopping you from boycotting goods produced literally with modern slave labor in stead of buying items that pay people a decent living wage? Chances are you buy the cheapest product like most people, and because it is socially acceptable, you too support modern slavery. Now if someone might not be completely aware of this dynamic, this individual changing their behavior in favor of support of human rights is now suddenly not commendable because they once enjoyed a higher standard of living at the expense of others? I argue that you yourself are doing the very same thing right now, only with a lot less awareness of how your habits cause human suffering. You should probably check your judgment lest ye be judged. IMO some one doing wrong, admitting it, and changing their behavior shows a lot more strength than the person that pretends they aren't perpetrators (you). I'm not talking about sweat sops. I am talking about literal slavery. Did you know more African American males are in forced servitude now than ever before in US history?
First, what logic can be applied to me? OP said we should praise white Europeans for abolishing slavery, and I said no, you can't claim credit for eventually getting rid of an evil you started. Then you come along and say "the same logic can be applied to you, you support slavery." You're not responding to anything I said with your attack. The only thing I said was white people don't get credit for abolishing slavery after they ruined so many lives with it.Second, your attack is a lot of unsubstantiated garbage. Please find common products sold in the US that are made " literally with modern slave labor." Be specific, the fact that clothes come from a country that is known to use slave labor is not evidence it was produced with slave labor. Further, clothes is a category, not a specific product. You will quickly see that your over-generalization breaks down when you get specific, because if there were products known to be created with forced labor, they wouldn't be for sale in the US for the public and political outrage, not to mention the damage it would do any US company to be associated with actual forced labor. And to reiterate your point, we're not talking about sweat shops, we're talking about a product made with forced servitude of a human being without recompense for the profit of a corporation, sold in the US and that I might reasonably buy, since you're so adamant that I'm supporting slavery in the modern age, which again was an attack you just lobbed out of nowhere, because it was not in response to anything I said. And finally, if we just accept your charge at face value, do you realize that the argument that developed nations still indirectly support slavery in the developing world strengthens my point that there's nothing prideful about the western world's track record on slavery? |
|
|
|
There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair. Nope. The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing. It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else. Consent of the governed is impossible. It is like saying agreed to be raped. If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape. And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary. Voluntary means not governed. This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists. Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is " the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically) Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread. The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
I have similarly removed mine, as it was unnecessary without context.
|
|
|
|
There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair. |
|
|
|
|
So you're advancing the idea that because some people who used to own slaves eventually voted to abolish it, those people should be commended even though they first failed to reject slavery as evil when they had the first opportunity, thereby tolerating and partaking in an institution that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives?
I'm not buying it.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a general question here about creating a troll post: Why do you make it so obvious as to tip your hand? There are basically two types of trolls:
1. The kind who are so obvious no one takes their posts seriously. These are lazy trolls, basically just out to post something stupid for some fast attention.
2. The kind who are discreet enough that people take them seriously and get mad about what they're posting. This requires more skill than the common troll has, but brings the same amount of attention.
So basically, don't be troll number one. Aspire to be better than that.
|
|
|
|
If you examine the history and strong tradition of how the Bible came into being, you will see that it is a book that is impossible to exist. This being the case, the God who caused the impossible-to-exist book to actually exist and be spread across the world like the Bible has been, must be the true God.
This is where you lose me. The bible isn't magic, impossible to exist, or proof of god. It's a malleable text that has changed as the political landscape of the church has changed. Hebrew scholars don't maintain it is either, unless they're fundamentalists: [The bible] was not written by one man, nor did it drop down from heaven as assumed by fundamentalists. It is not a magical book, but a collection of authoritative texts of apparently divine origin that went through a human process of writing and editing.
Timothy H. Lim is a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh. I believe his description of how the bible came to be more than yours, no offense. You've asked me to examine the history of the bible, but I don't have the faculties to do so, so I do the next best thing and rely on the experts who do. |
|
|
|
when it goes mainstream after a few years will the government start getting weaker now that people will they start to lose control over time?
Government is the collective will of the people in the country. Hard to see how minority can destroy it. Government's always claim this, whether or not it is true. Kings ruled by the will of god, but over time this proved to be untenable, also inaccurate. It seems people now are objecting (not necessarily rightfully so, but nonetheless) that government is not reflecting the will of the people any longer, but the interests of the rich and politically connected. Government is the will of the lawmakers, not to be confused with the will of the people/country. |
|
|
|
It's under investing by accident i just put it at the bottom.
I will make it clickable and i will add the patch where I added the license in the FAQ to the download.
You are a hard ass you know that
You are attempting to profit from the use of someone else's code that they generously shared with you on the condition that you share your modifications with others. You haven't been following the conditions that you agreed to by using that code. I'm just asking that you do so. It could be considered to be a dick move by me to hold a negative trust rating of you over your head to encourage you to comply, but Eric (the code's author) tried asking you nicely and that didn't work. I like that someone is holding his feet to the fire to comply with the license, but why isn't Eric the one doing so? Does he not care enough to pursue it or has he asked you to do it? Also, it seems if you (moonguy) are going to just take someone's code, complying with the license should be a pretty simple task. You're trying to profit off someone else's work, and he seems he's pretty OK with that, considering he did all the work. The concept and the code is not yours, you made some superficial changes to the look, and now you're making money on it. It's just decent to comply with the license that made it all possible. |
|
|
|
I think the government would just create new laws to effectively ban people from using it or make it so absurdly difficult that no one would want to. Kind of like passing the new concealed carry law in IL. Yeah it's legal now, but it's illegal to carry into a business with a no guns allowed sign properly posted. Since the state is strong-arming many businesses into putting up the signs against their will, they are effectively banning something they didn't want passed in the first place. This may not be the best example, but I have no doubt our government isn't coming up with a scheme to make bitcoin use illegal or impractical.
I don't find credible the claim that the state is coercing people into putting up a 'no guns allowed' sign. You're talking about private property, which means your right to carry a gun there is limited to the owner's right to use his property as he sees fit. If I owned a business, I would not allow guns on it, because I don't like guns. But I absolutely support the peoples' right to have guns, just not on my property. Your gun rights are between you and the state, not you and a private business owner. |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction. I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof'). I believe that you are close to right, if not right exactly. That still doesn't answer the question of scientific proof. Salvation by believing in Jesus is the only way. That salvation comes through reading or hearing the Word of God, only... no other way. However, since God created the workings of the universe through speaking them into being, there just might be a whole lot of people who will hear God's word even though they don't read the Bible, and are saved anyway. BUT, BUT, BUT, don't depend on this for salvation. After all, hearing the Word of God through nature doesn't present very much clarity. Read and believe the Bible. You're speaking of the Christian god. There are thousands of other gods all promising all manner of things in return for your faith. Who is to say one god is greater than any other? The followers of each all proclaim theirs is the greatest, but they all can't be right. In fact, the rules most religions build up around their god preclude the possibility of everyone being right: 'Allah is the one true god and Mohammad is his prophet.' -Islam 'I am the lord your god, you shall have no other gods before me.' -Christianity These are just two of the most popular religions today, and despite the fact that Islam proclaims to worship the same god as the Christian god, the followers of these religions have a long history of killing each other over 'worshiping the wrong god.' I don't find compelling any religion's case that their god exists, let alone that he is the sole god. The whole 'but only I can bring you salvation' bit each religion throws in sounds desperate, like a used-car salesman who really needs to make his quota this month to keep his job. |
|
|
|
|
I have sent you a PM regarding my status. My stats were listed correctly, but I was not paid.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Do you have anything to say in response to the first post on this page? Most people merely repeat what they hear in the (mainstream) media; I am guessing it is the fluoride that makes them like this. Yeah, my response to Dank's garbage was posted on the first page. The fluoride quip is in reference to a popular conspiracy theory in the 60's that the government was putting fluoride in the water as a mind control effort. It was almost as stupid as Dank's conspiracy theory that Ebola is purposely spread as population control method. |
|
|
|
You don't have to ascend to heaven if you don't want to. Enjoy your governments and industrial waste toxins in your water that turn your pineal gland into a rock.
The same toxic chemical Hitler put in the drinking water in concentration camps to pacify the people within them.
Your version of heaven is not a place worth going. The best part is, you get to enjoy my government too. You've done nothing to change the world. You'll continue to do nothing to change the world so long as all you do is whine about how terrible the world is. The world is bad? Do something about it. And no, preaching on the internet isn't something. How many actual opportunities have you passed up to make a positive change in the world by following your current path of proclaiming yourself a martyr? The answer is you probably don't even know, because you're not concerned with changing the world for the better. Your concern is establishing a cult where people all tell you how wonderful you are for caring so much. Anyone who doesn't buy into it you dismiss as working for Monsanto or loving tyranny or some other garbage. So many excuses for not doing anything with your life. How sad for you. |
|
|
|
Comments?
Some percent to Africa, some percent to US?
Orphans of African victims?
How to distribute with no losses through middlemen?
I'll start it with 10BTC.
Addresses not yet set up. But will figure that stuff out.
Another scam? LOL. Nope, not if I was involved. Total public postings of all transfers. It's the easiest thing in the world to show in the blockchain the complete path of a charity oiperation. One thing did occur to me as an interesting side effect of this type of thing, though. It would be necessary to BAN people living in Bitcoin-unfriendly areas. Thus the front page of a website such as this would say ... "NO Distributions will be made to Bangladesh or New York....." Let them see the consequences of their policy. The funds would be converted to fiat before distributing to the ultimate recipients anyway, so this wouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
