tortilliachp

To be fair, you can't really blanket every family with this statement. There's a legitimate concern about over-taxation. There are thousands of other families across America with the financial problems. I wouldn't call them all greedy. Of course, corporations WILL always argue against social bills and spread their propaganda, but you can't blanket everyone by saying only the corporations or rich snobs do it. ----------- Concerning the above argument, it would be responsible to require everyone above the age of 17 (with no medical problems that can contaminate the blood) to donate their blood to the local Red Cross center. Would it be fair to expect everyone to donate their blood? It would certainly save thousands of lives, but how would a person feel when they are required by law to donate their blood? ah, sorry for the misunderstanding, what i meant was that those with legitimate concerns have the most to gain from social reform: i.e. those who "would have financial issues with taxation". they won't, as they'll be recieiving more than they're paying, unless the system is flawed. the irony of the situation is that many of these campain against their own interests, as they are financially at risk. They are campaining against their own interests because they percieve their interests to be the opposite of what they are, because of a distrust of their own government. the rich are the ones who propagate these views to society, for their own greed, because they have the most to loose, paying more than they will recieve. blood argument: athletes loose out, and become incompetitive internationally. young athletes can never test their potential. further, you don't have blood at the expense of others. you do hold property, and wealth at the expense of others. those values wouldn't disappear if they were shared more morally. this discussion isn't really off-topic either: these are the questions that are increasingly splitting the special relationship appart, as america becomes increasingly politically polarized, and europe moves to the left: the right to inflict indirect harm onto others for the sake of freedom, or the right to freedom and autonomy from society.

how do you seperate those who can and those who can't help themselves? you can't really, thus you leave those who can't in a terrible position. show me government that manages that feat, and that policy has my vote. communism and autocracy go hand in hand: plan economy, free elections only within one political party. the ideology of equality is called anarchism. I'm not advocating equality, i'm advocating sustinance of the basic human rights for all, because they have those rights as humans regardless. you called the policy of social democracy communist. you called every country that has that policy communist. at least now you know better, and you may want to reconsider your opinion, because you obviously believe social reform to be way more extreme and radical than it is. you seem not to be reading what i'm posting: never hand him 10 dollars. hand him a food stamp or shelter stamp. money is often used to fuel an addiction, you can't do that with a food stamp. a stamp comes with conditions, cash doesn't.

china has its great firewall, many european countries have their child pornography filters. only small adaptations would be neccessary.

leaving people to die, because they don't deserve better. I have no respect for those who cannot feel compassion or empathy. No. the problem is that there's little to economically viable way for for any government to determine who can't and who won't. Therefore, in real terms they are unequivocally similar. once you start seperating them, you're moving into the world of ideology, not the world of realism. Communism is perfect in theory, as is your idea. they simply don't work though. You use communism as a term labelling any state with any degree of social security. Thus, you do in fact consider only the extreme. i am not twisting your words, you are generalizing everyone to be extremist, simply because you don't know better. look at Norway for instance, which is arguably a social democracy, which you group as a communist, autocratic regime. we have these policies, and just happen to be the country in the world the UN has repeatedly labled the best country to live in in the world. you label us as communnist, i label you ignorant. Going to be re-taught does not put fish on the table. fishing does. What neighbour lends to someone with a small likelyhood of being able to repay the debt? just look at sub-prime mortages. Tell those who are out of work, because they simply cannot be rehired anywhere (for instance in the case of economic downturn), that it's a pathetic argument that they actually cannot remmeber the details of their past occupation, after months of only applying for work, never practicing any of it. Tell those who have strokes, tell those whose fish become extinct, so they have to return to fishing techniques they haven't used in 20 years. you want dead hobos littering your streets, because you shouldn't be the one paying for it. that's bellow the belt, human dignity, your own self-respect and all reason.

Doesn't the majority decide what is the right thing, or the courts, or a combination of both? they certainly do in all other maters that aren't fiscal. That delegation of responsibility is the price you pay for participating in society. you are certainly free to remove yourself from our fiscal system and live in the wilderness if you choose to. you could move to a different country, if that is the only way of ensuring your freedom. he deserves more than you, because you already have more than him, and will remain having more than him even if gets this little bit. He also needs it, for you it is luxury. The human right for a livable life is not something you should take lightly upon limiting. in real terms, the numbers speak for themselves. you do get less. Look at Europe, that's the whole story here: by forcing people to donate (through taxes, and taxes again having 1% of GDP going to aid), more money gets donated per GDP, per dollar, per capita, per everything from the socially including standpoint, than from the system you advocate. All the theoretical scenarios you can create cannot argue the facts of today. The numbers also contradict your opinion, which might be a good reason to re-examine your opinion, as the real world seems to differ in its "opinion". Just think if the richest 1% in the US were forced to donate 1% of their wealth to charity every year. They would donate more, because they'd have to donate more than they do on average today. Just bill gates and Warren buffet alone would be over 6 billion dollars...They have pledged more, and certainly would anyway, being rich gives you moral responsibility: you can directly change the outcome of the world, or indrectly be held accountable (reasonably so) for doing nothing and being greedy.

Fixed. Just think of monaco, Hockenheimring, monte carlo etc. etc. I'm pretty sure i mean the old tracks :P

Ah, the right-wing extremist: "if you help someone it's communism!!!!!one!!!!!!1!" Either all or nothing, an ultimatium, not a reflection of the real world. Once you disregard someone's humanity, you have started sliding down a frictionless slope towards moral abyss. He deserves a fish that will sustain him, but not luxury. If he wants to get the fish of society, he's damn well going to have to stand in line, get up every morning and do things like everyone else. you don't just hand them a freebie, no sir. But he deserves a fish, even if it's small, ugly and tastes bad it will sustain him. maybe it should be small, ugly and taste bad. people don't deserve to die: you can't possibly be arguing for a stop to all human aid, for the sake of social darwinism: those are the policies of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. I doubt any sane human aspires to join their ideology. you cannot be saying that africa should be left to die on its own, that druggies should simply be left dead on the street, after all, noone should be obligated to pay for their burial, or removal... you can't be advocating that those who genuinely cannot afford medical care should be left to die. That would make you a horrid, selfish human being completely lacking all empathy. You must mean something different than you imply. What happens with the people who are unable to fish? what happens to the fishermen who want to fish, but can't get a spot on a boat? what happens to the man who forgets how to fish? what happens to the man who just doesn't catch any fish?

I'm saying forced charity isn't really charity at all. And it sort of goes both ways, it seems morally right to give these people all of these things, but not when they get them by taking them away from other people. I'll happily do community service and maybe even donate some money to a charity, next year I'll probably give blood, but you see I'm not obligated to do those things and I'm giving not being taken from. See? I realize where it seems kind of confusing. I can't think of a better way to explain it. forced charity still gets the work done though. I don't think it's about the fuzzy feeling of giving, it's about doing the right thing. If people can't do the right thing (murder, theft, defamation, stinge their taxes, threats, violence etc.), society makes them, in most other cases. why shouldn't society ensure at least a minimum of filanthropy or charity on your part, much less than what the average person says is ideologically right to give to the poor (as long as it doesn't come from themselves)? If Iran doesn't want to do the right thing, don't we make them do the right thing so the right thing gets done? The reality is, if you make it voluntary, you get less charity overall, because people are generally greedy. Even if the few feel good for giving, the selfish many get away living morally bankrupt lives at the expenditure of others. As said, there is only so much paint and canvas to go around, you are effectively ensuring someone else's poverty by being rich. That's people should be obligated, not only morally to help the less fortunate at all, because they are materilistic and won't do it otherwise. Yes, giving blood is certainly a different matter. Even many churches make you pay tithe, because they realize they won't get the donations they require otherwise. It's not like i can choose not to pay taxes making roads, because i feel greener alternatives (railroad) should be expanded instead. Why should i be able to choose that the unfortunate few don't get my money? what's the difference of that, and paying for a road i'll never even know is built? I don't see the logic. What i do see, is the selfish right to keep my own money, and substituting arguments for why things should remain as they are.

Also the metonymy of win!

so you're actually saying that the system does seem to lack morality, but it is actually moral, because when someone tells you what to do, even if you would do it otherwise, you shouldn't do it becasue then you're not "sticking it to the man" ? I don't think i follow the logic in your post. would you mind explaining it in other terms? unless these policies were incredibly flawed, those with legitimate concerns would be the ones earning the most from the social programs. that's the irony: they are the ones ensuring they will never get benefits. The rich are the ones who will selfishly reject social programs because, well, they are the ones paying for most of the welfare for othres, and have enough as it is, so they would recieve very little...

I disagree with that. In real life terms, this means that if someone knows how to do a specific job, but doesn't because they're too lazy, they should still get money for not doing anything at all. Basically, I could graduate high school, go sit at home and get money for it, because you say it's a human right. I disagree with that. You give up your rights if you're too lazy to work. you cannot possibly be saying that humans have no value if they make silly life choices, and therefore no rights! I am shocked. you have to read what i said in its context though: i'm advocating working for it. I.E. having to physically show up every morning to get your benefits, standing in lines etc. people shouldn't want to be on benefits. By making it tough, only those who really need help are going to bother getting that help, because a job would be the same effort for the same money. Benefits should also be given in other forms than cash. leaving people to die so a few people gc

high intensity interval training. 4 mins at 90% or more of your max puls, 2 mins at about 70% max puls. do 4 sets. Push upwards of your max puls in the last 15 seconds of each interval. Don't run HIIT 2 days in a row, but if you can, do it every two days. that is the most efficient way of training any aerob capacity, which is what all running, and other high intensity sports requires. I think you know the actual running strategies, so it's all about the actual fitness. good luck :)

The aussies have certainly managed to make a VERY entertaining track. The crash in the end of the race, and the risks the drivers have to take around the course, and can safely take make for incredible racing. Now to get rid of the old tracks where overtaking is not really possible in most corners and sections of the track. Australia is the future of racing.

As i don't live in the UK I don't know what there interests are but this implies to me that is has happened recently or is happening now. Also out of curiosity what brings up this statement? Europe and america have completely different ideologies. The american ideology is not appealing to the citizens of europe because it seems morally bankrupt to those of us over here. Human rights stand strong in Europe, self-determination stands strong in america. Therefore you have social security nets in europe, and not in america, because that's what the people of america don't want. America moved away from isolationism in the 1950s in favour of open-door policy. Especially after 9/11, this policy has become, what I (as a european) would call aggressive. especially the UK has a strong history for isolationism, and the attitude remains with the people, as can be seen in their immigration debate, and common opinion that Britain is becoming less british every day. Further, many americans are missing the bigger picture of a global world. Their understanding of the world and their position in it is diestored. Lacking knowledge about the rest of the world is off-putting to Europeans who wish to seem progressive. Europe also needs the image of being progressive to hold a global position of significance, which we obviously want, as we view ourselves as a highground for moral responsibility and accountability.

some people simply cannot provide for themselves. they must be given fish. Those who can provide for themselves, should. they must be taught to fish. Those taught to fish who choose not to fish still have human rights. They must be given fish to satisfy their human rights. Those recieving fish from the government should live dignified, but not luxurious lives. They should work as much as they can for the fish they recieve. Luxury fish are not a right, they are a privalige. When the fishing is bad, a lower amount of fish must be shared between more people, if everyone is to have their meal. Rich fishermen are morally obligated to feed their families, friends and enemies. The give back to the community that allows them to become rich fishermen because they could not be rich fishermen without the community. Rich fishermen have no right to be egotistical fishermen. All fishermen benefit from nature around them. They have an obligation to leave nature as they found it at the end of their lives. No fishermen today live sustainably in that fashion. Fish are individual, as are fishermen. Organizing fishing takes time and resources. the theory behind fishing is not difficult, the implementation of this theory in real life is.

You could still have an infinite universe if the boundaries of the universe (whatever that means) were expanding faster than the speed of light so light from those stars could never reach us. Same principle as the horizon problem I see no physical reason why an infinite universe couldn't expand, so I don't agree with the bold bit. Either way the infinity or not of the universe is an open question, no one knows if it's infinite or not, although people have their hunches, it's all just maths. But about aliens, I agree with Arthur C. Clarke: The horizon problem does not apply, as any object beyond our "horizon" would be moving faster than the speed of light. Thus, they can never decelerate to slower than the speed of light, and that mass may never be observed. The universe which we can interact with is limited by the speed of light barrier. There are no "boundries of the universe" that's a misconception. Only the space between particles expands. It's like stretching out an elastic band. however much you strech the elastic band, the band is still finite. 1+1 = 2. the universe is not infinite. that is the certainty of the maths involved. There is no fancy maths, it's all linear regression, or even simpler mathematics. It's not a hunch, it's science, just as the theory of gravity is science, and factual evolution occurs (whatever our origin is). You have a hunch. your hunch is wrong. science has proven your hunch wrong, just as the earth is not flat. How much astrophysics have you guys looked into? I provide scientific evidence. You disregard that evidence because you have a different opinion, as you haven't heard of the facts before. How can you continue to hold your predetermined opinion when it's proven to be wrong? It's like i were to claim Australia is not a country, being proven it is, and still not believing it! the concept of an infinite universe is absurd. Olber's paradox was solved, Hubble was right, Newton was wrong, enstein was right, the planck relation is correct. Modern science has proven those thesies; it is not pseudoscience, like climate models or any science that enlightened professionals disagree with. It is as absolute as gravity and the lambda-force of universal expansion.

herblore is free. you just have to use the right techniques (and you're better off checking it out for yourself and learning something along the way:)) I repot before supers run completely out. Repotting similarly with extremes, i save money, and get better stats. it is definately worth it.

I play on my tv :D it's nice playing a 52" with a spare monitor for non-runescape stuff. using the 9.3.2 (yes, 2 woofers) surround sound for playing games with surround sound for example battlefield is really an experience i wish everyone could have :)

I'm 18. I've coached younger kids in tennis since 14. At 14 through 17 i made about $37 an hour. After turning 18, it's closer to $58 an hour. being good at your interests can really pay off :D

I commented on the specific method outlined, the injection method, which is the method that should be used for all abortions in late stages of pregancy. This method has not had any of the problems you report. It is as humane as capital punishment by lethal injection, which is more humane than the killing of as good as any animals you eat are killed. It's the tearing down of a straw-man argument: You could use the propper technique, and the problems do not exist. that is not an issue of abortion, but of medical system. thus, unless you wish to tear down a straw-man, my assertion does still stand: there is no difference between late-term abortion and other abortion, in speaking of the outcome, if the right technique is used.

someone seems to have been scare-mongered by a radical example again -.-' Media really does know how to manipulate people: It's more likely to be struck by lightning multiple times than to survive a lethal injection of any kind. A fetus does not, will not and cannot survive a medically sound procedure of this kind. my assertion stands, scientifically speaking.

The consequences for the child (death) of late term abortion, and regular abortion are nothing. The consequences for the mother (not having a child) are also the same. You hold an emotive belief that cannot rationalized, where you personally distingish late abortion and other abortion. I wouldn't consider that common sense in any way, but your personal opinion, based on your point of veiw. In juding late abortions, you judge the people who have them, as you've labled the actions as "wrong". you have your opinion, I'm 'pro it's none of my business, and none of yours either' because that is the pro-common-sense stance.

Easy to say, hard to think about. It's not hard to think about at all, because it's wrong, and the proof is staring right back at us every living moment of every day (and on page 1 of this topic). actually, I was hoping that the otherwise science proficient community would consider scienfitic astrophysics points that they didn't neccessarily know before reading the topic, and realize that some things are very certain, and not speculations at all. Some of the things thrown out are proven to be wrong, so this topic may broaden horizons for many.

Your point? If a serial rapist argues that murder is wrong, is he wrong himself just because he's not a saint? Besides, I'm not entirely against abortion. I'm just presenting some various points for the sake of the debate. I think its better you have a safe abortion than an unsafe one. What I think is ridiculous are the people who call mothers who have abortions "murderers" and pro-choice people who assume every abortion is the result of a rape, incest, or would otherwise be harmful for the mother to have the baby. Sorry, I misread that post of yours, a_local_guy. I agree with you. my point? it's none of your business. even your own argument contradicts itself: the child is punished (in the case of rape) if it is aborted. it has done nothing wrong, yet dies. why do you therefore seperate it from other abortions? because of the mother, right? In that case, isn't the mother the person who should decide (in connection with the father if she wants) in each individual situation? that, again, makes it none of your business. I don't think we have the right to meddle with the life and death desicions of others. that goes if you're religious, it goes if you're not. All religions i know preach their gods as the only sources worthy of giving judgement. If you're not religious, what is then the meaning of life? Procreation? finding your meaning of life? Enjoying life? nothing? Without religion, how can you justify the value of human life as greater than other life? I think all of us disqualify ourselves due to our western lives as judges of others and their morality. We are, after all, the probable cause of mass extinction, of unfair distribution of foods which kills millions every year. we could all save hundreds of lives each year by spending our money not on ourselves, but on others. I don't think you have the right to tell anyone what they do to a single human life, as we've all sacrificed the lives of so many others for our own benefits. I don't think you can argue otherwise either, unless you say the life of a western child is worth more than the lives of non-westeners. After all, more than ten people could fed in many other parts of the world for the price of a single, lucky individual in the west. By aborting, you may actually ensure the survivability of 10 lives, sacrificing one. No, I don't think you have any right to have an opinion on who aborts and doesn't. You kill people indirectly every day, as do I. who are we to judge others taking just a single life?

Hehe, a common misconception. I will prove to you that the universe is not infinite by use of Olber's paradox, and Enstein's solution: The sky is dark at night. The universe is not static. The universe has a limited age. explanation: if the universe WAS infinite, the sky would be infinitely light as there are infinitely many stars in any given direction. With this infinity, supernovae would cover the nightsky completely at all times. The sky is dark, so the universe must be finite. The universe is not static. An infinite universe could not expand. Due to the redshift observed when examining distant objects in the night sky, we know the universe expands, the universe is therefore not infinite. This relation is quantified by Hubble's law. The universe has a limited age. That's not entirely true: we don't know what happened in the early stages of, or before the big bang. Due to the fact that we know the universe exapands, we can regress the expansion backwards: something must have started the expansion. True to expectance, if we go 13,4 billion years back, everything was gathered in a single point. This final assertion leads to another common misconception: this single point which was then the universe, is just as big as the universe is today. Many people ask " what's beyond that then". The concept "beyond the universe" doesn't exist, it's not possible. Knowing this singularity existed, which is does, because the universe expands, we know that all "planets" or other objects we can ever see are limited to the age since the last big bang, traveling just less than the speed of light consistently since then. The speed of light is a physical speed limit: we can never know if something faster than the speed of light exists, just as anything beyond the speed of light can never know if something is slower than the speed of light. They wouldn't even know of light as a concept. It is impossible to breech the speed of light. We don't know if something is above this limit, but if it is, it will remain that way for eternity, and will not resemble anything we know of today. All that aside, the universe very very large, not infinite. That doesn't take away from the trillions of quadrillions of stars that probably exist though :D