Btw, I've adopted your notation for this conversation, but you do know XrY is already an existing notation? r=remainder. Just fyi cause it might create confusion in the future. Repition is notated with ... or a bar over the repeating numbers. I know it's a made up convention, but it makes discussing it alot easier when everyone agrees.
I dont know where 0.0r1 even came from. Just to clarify, 0.0r1 means 0.000....1? I have never encountered a repeating number that suddenly stopped repeating. That defies the very definition of a repeating number. This makes no sense.
If its the same numbers repeating over and over again, there is no last number to reach! This also makes no sense! Is that last number in the millionth spot? The billionth? If you claim it must eventually end, where?! You are no longer taking about repeating decimals if the repitition stops.
Your dichotomy is false. It is a number, and you can't reach the end of it. Infinity is not a number, but numbers are infinite. In every direction.
Ummm y=1-1 doesnt establish that anything doesnt equal zero. And It it still doesnt explain where 0.0r1 came from to begin with.
Did you mean 0.0r0 with a 1 somewhere at the end of time? Because that is what 1-0.999... would incorrecrly represent. 0.0r1 makes no sense at all anywhere in your math.
At this point i think you should drop the first part of your name.
Also, what was the point of 1-1 = y. Why not just say y = 0.... or just use a zero. The point of a variable is to solve for it.... this is very sloppy math.
Im sorry, your equations do not follow. Problem number 1 is that you are using what your trying to prove in your premises, which leaves you open to circular logic. #2, where did 0.0r1 come from? As far as i can tell x*x = 0*0 = 0. Thats the problem when you use your conclusion in your premise.
No, it is well known that the greeks had proven the roundness of the earth, and all educated people of Columbus's time, including columbus, knew it was round.
My initial proof did not use 1/3 as a precondition. It involved the x10 method, and no prenotion of an existing equality.
Yes, those do exist in early education. Like how they teach that columbus proved the earth was round... but once you get to college, those simplifications are eliminated. This proof is only really discussed in advanced math classes in college, i dont think convenience is a thing. And even if it was, like the facts about columbus and the round earth, we would see detailed elaborations. The conclusion that it =1 is the most detailed elaboration.
Like i understand questioning certain aspects of history as the details of which can be very political, and many soueces biased.... but math!!!! Why would there be a nation (or actually world wide) conspiracy about the value of 1/3?!? That is absurd.
I did read it, i thought about it, and i came to the conclusion that you dont quite understand the concept of infinity.
Appealing to expert opinion within their field is a valid way to seek knowledge. Appealing to mass opinion is not a valid way to seek knowledge. I do not know you, or your qualifications. I have no way of verifying it. So unless you feel like disclosing personal information (which i am not asking for), i cannot use your expertise as evidence. You can make an argument, but you cannot reference yourself as proof. If i make an argument regarding my field of expertise, medicine, i will still have to cite a source beyond me. Thus self declarations of any kind are taken with a grain of salt. Your intelligence is known only to you and is anecdotal to anyone else.
It is a shame you are taking calm deliberation with arguments and citations as laughing. It appears you are becoming emotional. If you like we can settle this with an agree to disagree, but in my personal opinion, your arguments are unsatisfactory. I am not the only person of this opinion so far. Also, i support education and i find most people who reject it to be predisposed to alot of false knowledge that they declare with absolute confidence. My opinion is open to change, it has changed on this exact topic before. Your declarations of certainty and conspiracy (around education) do not sound like they are open to change.
If by majority you mean the masses of lay people who never looked into the matter, then yes. But as far as expert opinion in regards to people who actually study and work with numbers, noone agrees with you.
Self declared intelligence in defiance of education does not sound impressive. I am only citing a cliche saying when i state that only fools claim to know more then everyone else.
When this concept was first introduced to me, i laughed at it as well (it didnt help the person arguing for it did a terrible job of it). But when i looked up the proof myself i was convinced. The thing is we know how to turn a repeating decimal into a fraction. I showed it in my first post. It prooves that 0.333... is 1/3rd. Unless you are disputing that multiplying and dividing both sides of an equation by the same value doesnt change its equality... which if you are, you are disagreeing with the most fundamental aspect of algebra.
Why do you think you (with no external citation) are without a doubt correct, meanwhile everyone else, and all provided links are wrong? Maybe you should step.back from your certainty and reevaluate your position.
Here is where you are wrong. There is no 9 in the end of 0.9r. There is no end to an infinity. With that, your entire argument collapses.
I think i may have been a bit unclear. When i said it was incomplete, i meant it wasnt even trying to be complete. The explanation for creation simply involved "i did it, it was good." Thats a sad excuse for an explanation. My point was that even high school textbooks have more information on the science then the bible, and even they are incomplete and dumbed down significantly. This is not meant to be a jab at the bible as explaining scientific principles was not its purpose. So rather then not being complete knowledge, i will change that to the bible provides zero scientific knowledge. Many books, including fiction and historical.documentaries do not contradict science, while at the same time.explaining exactly zero science. Those 2 positions are not exclusive.
I accept both versions of "how to live". Both direct dos and donts, and plea for redemptions due to sin by default are both instructing you to take action rather then just miscellanious knowledge that can be used as a tool.
The book about the battle of Gettysburg is likely comprehensive of the battle of gettysburg to its desired level of detail. The bible is an inadequate history of even jesus and christians as we are.missing most of his formative years. To be honest, i dont care about the history angle. I believe ive said it before (perhaps not here) i have no desire to debate religion unless it is to defend science. I will say tho that mentioning real events and corresponding to history doesnt make it a history text. Not to say (or deny) the bible is fiction, many works of fiction mention real dates, events and people. They are still fiction. The titanic for example, or most war movies.
Also,
Mathematical proofs > logical reasoning.
Logic frequently fails us if we lack data or just spin it the wrong way. Knowledge, facts, and proofs always surpasses logic. The math is irrefutable.
In fact, according to the article all non repeating decimals have a second interpretation using an infinite regression. 3.32 can also be written as 3.31999... they are equal.
"After all the 3s (in 0.333...) there is an imaginery third as a single digit"
What?
Im sorry, there is no after all the 3s, the 3s continue to infinity. So after all the 3s, you have infinitely more 3s to go.
I will go with first choice in that the last 9 is never reached as there are infinite 9s before it. The point is that infinity is not a number, so you will never reach the end. I dont see how that wins the debate for you.
Also, when you x10, you don't get a zero at the end of the repeating decimal. The wiki article explains that in the section titled why some students refuse to accept this *fact*, like you seem to be doing.
Im going to have to agree with respect that you are not fully grasping the concept of infinity. Also education has nothing to do with it. I have a college degree and this still came as a suprise. Not everyone studies math and this question will not come up in law, medicine, or most degree programs.
"The Republican Civil War era program included free homestead farms, a federally subsidized transcontinental railroad, a national banking system, a large national debt, land grants for higher education, a new national banking system, a wartime income tax and permanent high tariffs to promote industrial growth and high wages. By the 1870s, they had adopted as well a hard money system based on the gold standard and fought off efforts to promote inflation through Free Silver.[40] They created the foundations of the modern welfare state through an extensive program of pensions for Union veterans."
Thats one heck of a progressive platform.
I also pointed out the clear swap of constituencies.
Regardless the argument from the distant past is both stupid and immoral. Here are both examples.
The United states supported slavery, thus the United states is immoral forever. Stupid argument.
Sins of the father. Immoral argument.
And in both cases, an irrelevant argument to the current situation.
Im glad we agree on the problem of money in politics. 1. Idealism does not overrule reality. 2. There are limitations to free speech. 3. Alternative solutions like providing an alternative source of information to ads.
There is a reason supply and demand are economics 101, freshman level beginner knowledge. Even advanced economics often fails to predict the market, due to humans not being homo economicus. The invisible hand is guided by those with influence, it mever was a neutral force of nature. Even without overpowered players exerting undo influence, its fundamental structure can influence its effects, and they can be tweaked. We should have a more focused discussion on this but i disagree with the defeatist stance you have taken.
My point was that although not a majority, the idea has broad support within the Republican party. Perhaps they shouldnt be outright dismissed.
I think we are talking about different layers. While you are saying the books were on different subjects (sins and redemption, praise of god, how to interact with your neighbors), i am saying they are all of the same genre, how to live properly, and why. I think this is indisuptable.
But as far as science and history, you have not contested my claims of its lack of focus. There is almost no science, and sporadic incomplete history.
With that i would like to add to this by asking: when did god declare that he was giving people the entire truth of the world? It seems to me he focused mostly on his law and often mentions a *message*, not complete knowledge. He wanted to instruct them on proper conduct, not the secrets of his creation. Like a 5 year old asking his 12th why, God probably gave them the perfect answer to promptly shut them up and make them focus.
Im sorry, this is getting a bit convoluted. Please pick any 2 of those subjects and i will respond to them, but this mess will get us nowhere.
A couple of quick replies. By democratic party do you mean the one that represented rural conservative mostly southerners 100 years ago? Pretty much the republicans of today? This is a stupid argument that is not original. This is just cliche propaganda 1 liners. It may have been called the democratic party, but it was made of Republican constituency.
And were you not in agreement that the influence of money on politics is one of the biggest problems our democracy faces? Abortion i understand, but taxes and regulation being more important then your voice in your government! Bullshit. That isnt for the people, that is for the system. And its incomparable to any offense, real or imagined, from the democrats.
"The market will right itself... invisible hand"
Laughable naivety.
I didn't say banning hate speech was good. I simply pointed out that over 1/3rd of republicans also supported the idea. Which lead me to believe the question in the poll might be questionable. The claim that we are the only 1st world country where it isnt banned gave me pause for thought as well.
Your exaggerated and presumptive reaction made me feel this conversation isnt going to go anywhere unless i call you out like this.
Actually this crash course might be more useful to you. Its calles big history and its essentially a fusion of science and history to chronologically connect the big bang to today.
Explosions create heat. Heat is necessary for chemical and nuclear reactions to happen.
We are all born simple men (and women). It is up to us to improve ourselves. If your going to try to use science in a debate, it helps to understand science. Everything is explaoned in the crash course, from the big bang, to suoernova fusion. The videos are only 10 minutes.
A supernova is an explosion.
The big bang was not an explosion.
Nobody knows what was before the big bang.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
Your site was a kids site. The big brand theory speaks about our universe, not anything beyond or before.
You seem to lack fundamental understanding about science. If you wish to use science in an argument, i would recommend learning the fundamentals before driving into specific articles. Please try crash course on YouTube. They host many simplified college freshman level courses on many science, history, and other subjects
Supernovaes are not from nothing.
Big bang was not an actual explosion, and we dont know whether it came from nothing, from a singularity, or from something else.
Actually explosions can create. Not life but its ingredients.
Big bang, as i explained, was not an explosion. But Supernovas are. And they are what formed all the heavier elements that are required by life.
We dont know what was before the big bang, so it either created or released all the energy, time, and space that is our universe. Life came much much later, right after the big bang, it was too hot for even fundamental particles to exist, forget about complex organic molecules. Most of yohe elements involved in life wont form until the first generation of stars fuses them.
There is no explosion that created life. What are you talking about?
Do you mean the big bang? The cambrian explosion? None of those created life, and neither were actual explosions. Which explosion are you talking about. I have no idea.
Not saying who is right or wrong but pros arguments were weak...
Rules used to say you could have slaves... rules also say you cant murder people willy nilly. Clearly rules are not bad just because they are rules, but because of their individual justifications.
Pro used an example of a bad rule to descredit rules in general, which ignores all the good rules that we should be glad exists. He never questioned the specifics of the rules, just their existence. Thats a fail.
Does pro think we should also have secret voting and let trolls ruin this site in the name of blind idealism?
The narrarive of the bible that you describe doesnt seem to answer the question of the purpose of the bible. Or in other words, what is the purpose of the jesus narrative you described. It certainly does give an answer to those question but i doubt those questions were answered just to satisfy our curiosity. It was meant to change behavior and to guide people in the way they act and live is my opinion. Thus i am certain god intended the bible to first and foremost (and possibly nothing more than) be a moral guide.
Stating that it is in agreement with science and history does not mean it is an adequate description of either. Assuming it doesnt contradict science (although creating the earth before the stars is quite the contradiction), it certainly doesnt describe any physics, chemistry, or biology. There is no mention of atoms, bonding, cells, germs (which would have been very helpful back in thise days). No explanation of how to create medicine or predicting storms. No mention of the amazing potential of electricity.
Similarly when it comes to history, it occasionally names a ruler or 2, but only state his actions when they intersect with jesus or his followers. You dont know when the ruler came to power, when he left, any important dates not directly related to jesus. No actions, policies or battles that happened between other nations. Rome has a rich history with many power struggles, battles, controversies. However rome is only mentioned when they captured and killed jesus, and when they converted to christianity. There is much more to the story of rome, just as there was much more to the story of the nations around judah besides that one time David killed their goliath. Its pretty bare bones history from a very limited perspective.
If the bible was meant to be a history/science book, it is a terrible history/science book. But thats ok if that was never its intended purpose. The best science books are terrible moral guides.
I hope it wont shut off debate if i say i am an atheist. However when discussing god i tend to assume god, as debating his existence is friutless not only due to stubbernness, but the impossibility of definitive proof.
I see no logical contradiction to a creator a priori, i simply find it unlikely posteori. However it is not impossible, and worth considering.
I agree any god is likely unknowable by humans, but we do presume to know some things about the biblical god. His omni characterics, particularly omnibenevolence.
With that in mind i will ask you a question. Was the bible intended to be a comprehensive testament of science and history? Or was it primarily a guide on how to live and how to treat one another, along with a handful of lines to describe creation.
Sorry, turned into 2 questions.
I try not to debate religion itself too much, but what i do believe in are the findings of science. If there is a god, he created and moves this world via the processes discovered by science.
A soul has nothing to do with evolution. When a human is born, god actively (or via some automated process) selects a soul to enter it. When a different animal is born, he doesn't.
God planned and kicked off the process of evolution (likely all the way back with the establishment of physics) with the intent to wait for man to inevitably evolve (as planned), to begin putting souls onto the earth. Its not like time has meaning for him.
Isnt that exactly what i said in my definition of sex? Xx/xy? Reading before assuming is helpful. Btw, for all the millenial hate, what exactly do boomers and Xers have to be proud of? The cuddled lazy spoiled gen, and the nihistic defeatist gen... millenials seem amazing in comparison.
Btw, this is a discussion of gender not sex. Could be the source of your confusion.
Sex. Male/female. Not really about penis/vagina. Its about xx/xy. Either way, unchanging.
Gender: masculine/feminine. More about how you feel/act. Like comparing prince to rocky. Opposite ends of the spectrum. Both still obviously male.
Transgender are (a guess) the result of over enforcing masculine norms on feminine men, (or vise versa for women, which is much rarer). Instead of a secure girly man, you have a man convinced he should not be a man. They are sex binary, only male/female, they are just the wrong one.
3rd gender have nothing to do with sex at all and are all very ok with their sex. Their personalities are just skewed to the opposite end of the gender spectrum.
Im sure most sociologists and biologists will agree with your definition of sex. What do physical body parts have to do with a social construct? Perhaps you should try reconciling definitions before making a semantic argument about similar terms?
Democratic bill that forces disclosure of annonimous money pumped into our politics. Republicans in senate refuse to even consider it for a vote.
Getting money out of politics is a central policy of nearly every democratic candidate, republicans barely even pay it lip service.
And finally, as to your poll about banning hate speech. Yes 51% of dems support it, but so do 37% of repubs. It also mentions we are the only developed nation to not have banned it. Im curious as to the exact for of the question and what they mean by hate speech. Remember, the devil is in the details, and simplified 1 liners are probably propaganda.
Those are some very peculiar freedoms. Taxation is a fact of every nation in history. What is theft is how main street suffered most from the recession, but wages were stagnant throughout the recovery as the markets boomed. You believe the market will right itself without bias if left alone, that is naive. The market is a human creation and it is guided by human hands. Whether those hands belong to the nation as a whole, or just the wealthy few is the left right debate. Your essentially repeating the false logic of wealthy peoppe looking out for themselves at your expense. Guns for protection is another line moneyed interests are pushing on you. Study after study show guns make you less safe. No, forcing people to have health insurance doesnt take away nearly as much power from citizens as declaring that money = speech. Not even close. Having health insurance is a good thing. Having wealthy people steal the ear of your representatives is a disaster that could be an existential threat to our democracy. All of your oversimplified 1 liner complaints pale in comparison to the promotion of moneyed interests.
Whats wrong with cuomo's freakout? What does that say about policy? Is he not allowed to express anger or frustration? Are you for freedom expression or against it? Do you believe free speech is a one way street?
I dont know who is saying what about republicans in general. Lets look at the numbers. There are 300 million people in the usa, and they are more or less evenly split between right, left, and independents. That leaves 100million people on either side of our comparison. Yes there will be idiots on both sides that say stupid shit on a blog or YouTube. They are not "the left". For every anecdotal example you show me of a lefty saying all republicans are racist i will show you a clip of a righty calling for a race war, or declaring something equally general about all lefties. This claims of things "you guys said was true about republicans" are fake. At best exaggerating anecdotes, but the best propganda bases itself on distorted truths.
I dont think they accused him of gang rape, nor was he held for trial. They were questioning his moral character as a judge of the supreme court. I didnt follow the accusations much, but his performance in the congressional hearing was really bad. I questioned his competency, not his character.
Citizens United was decided along party lines with the much praised right wing judges unanimously supporting it. the result was that money=speech and thus wealthy people can "speak" alot more then the rest of us. Whether it was anti hillary or whoever, it was a very bad result for the people. I will look for other bills linked to lawmakers as well, however the argument for it is a so called "cry for freedom", a freedom for the few that takes away the voice of many in their own government.
How much they raise and spend is a red herring. Money in necessary to run and win elections as per the current set up. The question what they do when they get into power, stop the money, or increase its influence.
Why would i ask a biologist about a *social* construct?
Would you ask a biologist about what movie to watch?
Wouldnt a *soci*ologist be the best person to ask about a *soci*al or *soci*etal question.
A few facts.
People who associated with epstein include, clinton, trump, a british royal, many other powerful and wealthy people.
Some claim bill clinton is guilty of murder because he associated with them, wouldnt that mean all of the people who associated with him are equally guilty?
Claiming it must be the person you disagree with politically, even tho multiple suspects have the same connection is the most pathetic example of being a partisan hack.
I would be against the democratic party if i believed half the propaganda right wing sites spread about it. Unfortunately, blatant lies and anecdotal claims are not very convincing. I would reevaluate your opinion of democrats based less off of claims from right wing sites and anecdotal idiots on the street, like that trans guy making a freakout in a video. Idiots exist on both sides, no prominent democrat promotes mandating/policing language, although individuals do have the right to whine in public (free speech).
Your very first point about lobbying and the influence of money is something i STRONGLY agree with. I consider it the primary thing wrong with our nation, and eliminating it will ease the partisan divide and make all other solutions easier. Unfortunately i blame the right for this problem, and although Democrats play the money game just as much, it is the Republicans that pass the laws allowing that in spite of democratic opposition. For example, citizens united was passed and supported by republicans along party lines. The republican corruption is not based off individual corrupt politicians, but an organized corrupt platform with the goal of limiting the power of most average people. I consider that treason.
The policies that lead to blue states to be economic successes and red states to essentially require federal welfare.
Also the policies that resulted in consistently better economic performance under democratic presidents vs republican presidents. I know a president has limited effect, but if there is a consistent pattern across numerous presidencies, it makes for a stronger point.
Please, accept the debate if you are interested. All evidence will be presented.
And this is why debates have limited rounds. We will have to agree to disagree. Good debate. 🍻
Btw, I've adopted your notation for this conversation, but you do know XrY is already an existing notation? r=remainder. Just fyi cause it might create confusion in the future. Repition is notated with ... or a bar over the repeating numbers. I know it's a made up convention, but it makes discussing it alot easier when everyone agrees.
I dont know where 0.0r1 even came from. Just to clarify, 0.0r1 means 0.000....1? I have never encountered a repeating number that suddenly stopped repeating. That defies the very definition of a repeating number. This makes no sense.
If its the same numbers repeating over and over again, there is no last number to reach! This also makes no sense! Is that last number in the millionth spot? The billionth? If you claim it must eventually end, where?! You are no longer taking about repeating decimals if the repitition stops.
Your dichotomy is false. It is a number, and you can't reach the end of it. Infinity is not a number, but numbers are infinite. In every direction.
Ummm y=1-1 doesnt establish that anything doesnt equal zero. And It it still doesnt explain where 0.0r1 came from to begin with.
Did you mean 0.0r0 with a 1 somewhere at the end of time? Because that is what 1-0.999... would incorrecrly represent. 0.0r1 makes no sense at all anywhere in your math.
At this point i think you should drop the first part of your name.
Also, what was the point of 1-1 = y. Why not just say y = 0.... or just use a zero. The point of a variable is to solve for it.... this is very sloppy math.
Im sorry, your equations do not follow. Problem number 1 is that you are using what your trying to prove in your premises, which leaves you open to circular logic. #2, where did 0.0r1 come from? As far as i can tell x*x = 0*0 = 0. Thats the problem when you use your conclusion in your premise.
X = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
X = 9/9 = 1
Math doesnt lie.
It isnt just nasa, its a world wide concensus including competing intellectual institutions and enemy nations. Thats 1 heck of a coverup.
Lets leave the flat earth discussion for another day.
No, it is well known that the greeks had proven the roundness of the earth, and all educated people of Columbus's time, including columbus, knew it was round.
My initial proof did not use 1/3 as a precondition. It involved the x10 method, and no prenotion of an existing equality.
Yes, those do exist in early education. Like how they teach that columbus proved the earth was round... but once you get to college, those simplifications are eliminated. This proof is only really discussed in advanced math classes in college, i dont think convenience is a thing. And even if it was, like the facts about columbus and the round earth, we would see detailed elaborations. The conclusion that it =1 is the most detailed elaboration.
Like i understand questioning certain aspects of history as the details of which can be very political, and many soueces biased.... but math!!!! Why would there be a nation (or actually world wide) conspiracy about the value of 1/3?!? That is absurd.
I did read it, i thought about it, and i came to the conclusion that you dont quite understand the concept of infinity.
Appealing to expert opinion within their field is a valid way to seek knowledge. Appealing to mass opinion is not a valid way to seek knowledge. I do not know you, or your qualifications. I have no way of verifying it. So unless you feel like disclosing personal information (which i am not asking for), i cannot use your expertise as evidence. You can make an argument, but you cannot reference yourself as proof. If i make an argument regarding my field of expertise, medicine, i will still have to cite a source beyond me. Thus self declarations of any kind are taken with a grain of salt. Your intelligence is known only to you and is anecdotal to anyone else.
It is a shame you are taking calm deliberation with arguments and citations as laughing. It appears you are becoming emotional. If you like we can settle this with an agree to disagree, but in my personal opinion, your arguments are unsatisfactory. I am not the only person of this opinion so far. Also, i support education and i find most people who reject it to be predisposed to alot of false knowledge that they declare with absolute confidence. My opinion is open to change, it has changed on this exact topic before. Your declarations of certainty and conspiracy (around education) do not sound like they are open to change.
If by majority you mean the masses of lay people who never looked into the matter, then yes. But as far as expert opinion in regards to people who actually study and work with numbers, noone agrees with you.
Self declared intelligence in defiance of education does not sound impressive. I am only citing a cliche saying when i state that only fools claim to know more then everyone else.
When this concept was first introduced to me, i laughed at it as well (it didnt help the person arguing for it did a terrible job of it). But when i looked up the proof myself i was convinced. The thing is we know how to turn a repeating decimal into a fraction. I showed it in my first post. It prooves that 0.333... is 1/3rd. Unless you are disputing that multiplying and dividing both sides of an equation by the same value doesnt change its equality... which if you are, you are disagreeing with the most fundamental aspect of algebra.
Why do you think you (with no external citation) are without a doubt correct, meanwhile everyone else, and all provided links are wrong? Maybe you should step.back from your certainty and reevaluate your position.
Here is where you are wrong. There is no 9 in the end of 0.9r. There is no end to an infinity. With that, your entire argument collapses.
I think i may have been a bit unclear. When i said it was incomplete, i meant it wasnt even trying to be complete. The explanation for creation simply involved "i did it, it was good." Thats a sad excuse for an explanation. My point was that even high school textbooks have more information on the science then the bible, and even they are incomplete and dumbed down significantly. This is not meant to be a jab at the bible as explaining scientific principles was not its purpose. So rather then not being complete knowledge, i will change that to the bible provides zero scientific knowledge. Many books, including fiction and historical.documentaries do not contradict science, while at the same time.explaining exactly zero science. Those 2 positions are not exclusive.
I accept both versions of "how to live". Both direct dos and donts, and plea for redemptions due to sin by default are both instructing you to take action rather then just miscellanious knowledge that can be used as a tool.
The book about the battle of Gettysburg is likely comprehensive of the battle of gettysburg to its desired level of detail. The bible is an inadequate history of even jesus and christians as we are.missing most of his formative years. To be honest, i dont care about the history angle. I believe ive said it before (perhaps not here) i have no desire to debate religion unless it is to defend science. I will say tho that mentioning real events and corresponding to history doesnt make it a history text. Not to say (or deny) the bible is fiction, many works of fiction mention real dates, events and people. They are still fiction. The titanic for example, or most war movies.
Also,
Mathematical proofs > logical reasoning.
Logic frequently fails us if we lack data or just spin it the wrong way. Knowledge, facts, and proofs always surpasses logic. The math is irrefutable.
In fact, according to the article all non repeating decimals have a second interpretation using an infinite regression. 3.32 can also be written as 3.31999... they are equal.
"After all the 3s (in 0.333...) there is an imaginery third as a single digit"
What?
Im sorry, there is no after all the 3s, the 3s continue to infinity. So after all the 3s, you have infinitely more 3s to go.
I will go with first choice in that the last 9 is never reached as there are infinite 9s before it. The point is that infinity is not a number, so you will never reach the end. I dont see how that wins the debate for you.
Also, when you x10, you don't get a zero at the end of the repeating decimal. The wiki article explains that in the section titled why some students refuse to accept this *fact*, like you seem to be doing.
Im going to have to agree with respect that you are not fully grasping the concept of infinity. Also education has nothing to do with it. I have a college degree and this still came as a suprise. Not everyone studies math and this question will not come up in law, medicine, or most degree programs.
Its ok. I didnt believe it at first either.
Intellectually lazy is jumping to conclusions before hearing any arguments 🙃
"The Republican Civil War era program included free homestead farms, a federally subsidized transcontinental railroad, a national banking system, a large national debt, land grants for higher education, a new national banking system, a wartime income tax and permanent high tariffs to promote industrial growth and high wages. By the 1870s, they had adopted as well a hard money system based on the gold standard and fought off efforts to promote inflation through Free Silver.[40] They created the foundations of the modern welfare state through an extensive program of pensions for Union veterans."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Thats one heck of a progressive platform.
I also pointed out the clear swap of constituencies.
Regardless the argument from the distant past is both stupid and immoral. Here are both examples.
The United states supported slavery, thus the United states is immoral forever. Stupid argument.
Sins of the father. Immoral argument.
And in both cases, an irrelevant argument to the current situation.
Im glad we agree on the problem of money in politics. 1. Idealism does not overrule reality. 2. There are limitations to free speech. 3. Alternative solutions like providing an alternative source of information to ads.
There is a reason supply and demand are economics 101, freshman level beginner knowledge. Even advanced economics often fails to predict the market, due to humans not being homo economicus. The invisible hand is guided by those with influence, it mever was a neutral force of nature. Even without overpowered players exerting undo influence, its fundamental structure can influence its effects, and they can be tweaked. We should have a more focused discussion on this but i disagree with the defeatist stance you have taken.
My point was that although not a majority, the idea has broad support within the Republican party. Perhaps they shouldnt be outright dismissed.
I think we are talking about different layers. While you are saying the books were on different subjects (sins and redemption, praise of god, how to interact with your neighbors), i am saying they are all of the same genre, how to live properly, and why. I think this is indisuptable.
But as far as science and history, you have not contested my claims of its lack of focus. There is almost no science, and sporadic incomplete history.
With that i would like to add to this by asking: when did god declare that he was giving people the entire truth of the world? It seems to me he focused mostly on his law and often mentions a *message*, not complete knowledge. He wanted to instruct them on proper conduct, not the secrets of his creation. Like a 5 year old asking his 12th why, God probably gave them the perfect answer to promptly shut them up and make them focus.
Below
Im sorry, this is getting a bit convoluted. Please pick any 2 of those subjects and i will respond to them, but this mess will get us nowhere.
A couple of quick replies. By democratic party do you mean the one that represented rural conservative mostly southerners 100 years ago? Pretty much the republicans of today? This is a stupid argument that is not original. This is just cliche propaganda 1 liners. It may have been called the democratic party, but it was made of Republican constituency.
And were you not in agreement that the influence of money on politics is one of the biggest problems our democracy faces? Abortion i understand, but taxes and regulation being more important then your voice in your government! Bullshit. That isnt for the people, that is for the system. And its incomparable to any offense, real or imagined, from the democrats.
"The market will right itself... invisible hand"
Laughable naivety.
I didn't say banning hate speech was good. I simply pointed out that over 1/3rd of republicans also supported the idea. Which lead me to believe the question in the poll might be questionable. The claim that we are the only 1st world country where it isnt banned gave me pause for thought as well.
Your exaggerated and presumptive reaction made me feel this conversation isnt going to go anywhere unless i call you out like this.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMczXZUmjb3mZSU1Roxnrey
Actually this crash course might be more useful to you. Its calles big history and its essentially a fusion of science and history to chronologically connect the big bang to today.
Explosions create heat. Heat is necessary for chemical and nuclear reactions to happen.
We are all born simple men (and women). It is up to us to improve ourselves. If your going to try to use science in a debate, it helps to understand science. Everything is explaoned in the crash course, from the big bang, to suoernova fusion. The videos are only 10 minutes.
A supernova is an explosion.
The big bang was not an explosion.
Nobody knows what was before the big bang.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
Your site was a kids site. The big brand theory speaks about our universe, not anything beyond or before.
You seem to lack fundamental understanding about science. If you wish to use science in an argument, i would recommend learning the fundamentals before driving into specific articles. Please try crash course on YouTube. They host many simplified college freshman level courses on many science, history, and other subjects
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2vrmieg9tO1lr_VYDP1anWdp4jmlt9RX
This is a link to their astronomy series. This will help put your articles into perspective.
Supernovaes are not from nothing.
Big bang was not an actual explosion, and we dont know whether it came from nothing, from a singularity, or from something else.
Actually explosions can create. Not life but its ingredients.
Big bang, as i explained, was not an explosion. But Supernovas are. And they are what formed all the heavier elements that are required by life.
We dont know what was before the big bang, so it either created or released all the energy, time, and space that is our universe. Life came much much later, right after the big bang, it was too hot for even fundamental particles to exist, forget about complex organic molecules. Most of yohe elements involved in life wont form until the first generation of stars fuses them.
The big bang didnt create life ...
Anyway, was just curious what explosion you meant. Ill leave this to your contender.
There is no explosion that created life. What are you talking about?
Do you mean the big bang? The cambrian explosion? None of those created life, and neither were actual explosions. Which explosion are you talking about. I have no idea.
What explosion are you talking about?
Wow.
Not saying who is right or wrong but pros arguments were weak...
Rules used to say you could have slaves... rules also say you cant murder people willy nilly. Clearly rules are not bad just because they are rules, but because of their individual justifications.
Pro used an example of a bad rule to descredit rules in general, which ignores all the good rules that we should be glad exists. He never questioned the specifics of the rules, just their existence. Thats a fail.
Does pro think we should also have secret voting and let trolls ruin this site in the name of blind idealism?
The narrarive of the bible that you describe doesnt seem to answer the question of the purpose of the bible. Or in other words, what is the purpose of the jesus narrative you described. It certainly does give an answer to those question but i doubt those questions were answered just to satisfy our curiosity. It was meant to change behavior and to guide people in the way they act and live is my opinion. Thus i am certain god intended the bible to first and foremost (and possibly nothing more than) be a moral guide.
Stating that it is in agreement with science and history does not mean it is an adequate description of either. Assuming it doesnt contradict science (although creating the earth before the stars is quite the contradiction), it certainly doesnt describe any physics, chemistry, or biology. There is no mention of atoms, bonding, cells, germs (which would have been very helpful back in thise days). No explanation of how to create medicine or predicting storms. No mention of the amazing potential of electricity.
Similarly when it comes to history, it occasionally names a ruler or 2, but only state his actions when they intersect with jesus or his followers. You dont know when the ruler came to power, when he left, any important dates not directly related to jesus. No actions, policies or battles that happened between other nations. Rome has a rich history with many power struggles, battles, controversies. However rome is only mentioned when they captured and killed jesus, and when they converted to christianity. There is much more to the story of rome, just as there was much more to the story of the nations around judah besides that one time David killed their goliath. Its pretty bare bones history from a very limited perspective.
If the bible was meant to be a history/science book, it is a terrible history/science book. But thats ok if that was never its intended purpose. The best science books are terrible moral guides.
I hope it wont shut off debate if i say i am an atheist. However when discussing god i tend to assume god, as debating his existence is friutless not only due to stubbernness, but the impossibility of definitive proof.
I see no logical contradiction to a creator a priori, i simply find it unlikely posteori. However it is not impossible, and worth considering.
I agree any god is likely unknowable by humans, but we do presume to know some things about the biblical god. His omni characterics, particularly omnibenevolence.
With that in mind i will ask you a question. Was the bible intended to be a comprehensive testament of science and history? Or was it primarily a guide on how to live and how to treat one another, along with a handful of lines to describe creation.
Sorry, turned into 2 questions.
I try not to debate religion itself too much, but what i do believe in are the findings of science. If there is a god, he created and moves this world via the processes discovered by science.
A soul has nothing to do with evolution. When a human is born, god actively (or via some automated process) selects a soul to enter it. When a different animal is born, he doesn't.
God planned and kicked off the process of evolution (likely all the way back with the establishment of physics) with the intent to wait for man to inevitably evolve (as planned), to begin putting souls onto the earth. Its not like time has meaning for him.
I can totally explain the soul conundrum if its ok. Not sure with the semi ongoing debate and all.
Isnt that exactly what i said in my definition of sex? Xx/xy? Reading before assuming is helpful. Btw, for all the millenial hate, what exactly do boomers and Xers have to be proud of? The cuddled lazy spoiled gen, and the nihistic defeatist gen... millenials seem amazing in comparison.
Btw, this is a discussion of gender not sex. Could be the source of your confusion.
Sex. Male/female. Not really about penis/vagina. Its about xx/xy. Either way, unchanging.
Gender: masculine/feminine. More about how you feel/act. Like comparing prince to rocky. Opposite ends of the spectrum. Both still obviously male.
Transgender are (a guess) the result of over enforcing masculine norms on feminine men, (or vise versa for women, which is much rarer). Instead of a secure girly man, you have a man convinced he should not be a man. They are sex binary, only male/female, they are just the wrong one.
3rd gender have nothing to do with sex at all and are all very ok with their sex. Their personalities are just skewed to the opposite end of the gender spectrum.
Colors may have been chosen intelligently, or they could have been chosen randomly and only the best one survived.
Im sure most sociologists and biologists will agree with your definition of sex. What do physical body parts have to do with a social construct? Perhaps you should try reconciling definitions before making a semantic argument about similar terms?
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18253609/hr-1-pelosi-house-democrats-anti-corruption-mcconnell
Democratic bill that forces disclosure of annonimous money pumped into our politics. Republicans in senate refuse to even consider it for a vote.
Getting money out of politics is a central policy of nearly every democratic candidate, republicans barely even pay it lip service.
And finally, as to your poll about banning hate speech. Yes 51% of dems support it, but so do 37% of repubs. It also mentions we are the only developed nation to not have banned it. Im curious as to the exact for of the question and what they mean by hate speech. Remember, the devil is in the details, and simplified 1 liners are probably propaganda.
Those are some very peculiar freedoms. Taxation is a fact of every nation in history. What is theft is how main street suffered most from the recession, but wages were stagnant throughout the recovery as the markets boomed. You believe the market will right itself without bias if left alone, that is naive. The market is a human creation and it is guided by human hands. Whether those hands belong to the nation as a whole, or just the wealthy few is the left right debate. Your essentially repeating the false logic of wealthy peoppe looking out for themselves at your expense. Guns for protection is another line moneyed interests are pushing on you. Study after study show guns make you less safe. No, forcing people to have health insurance doesnt take away nearly as much power from citizens as declaring that money = speech. Not even close. Having health insurance is a good thing. Having wealthy people steal the ear of your representatives is a disaster that could be an existential threat to our democracy. All of your oversimplified 1 liner complaints pale in comparison to the promotion of moneyed interests.
Whats wrong with cuomo's freakout? What does that say about policy? Is he not allowed to express anger or frustration? Are you for freedom expression or against it? Do you believe free speech is a one way street?
I dont know who is saying what about republicans in general. Lets look at the numbers. There are 300 million people in the usa, and they are more or less evenly split between right, left, and independents. That leaves 100million people on either side of our comparison. Yes there will be idiots on both sides that say stupid shit on a blog or YouTube. They are not "the left". For every anecdotal example you show me of a lefty saying all republicans are racist i will show you a clip of a righty calling for a race war, or declaring something equally general about all lefties. This claims of things "you guys said was true about republicans" are fake. At best exaggerating anecdotes, but the best propganda bases itself on distorted truths.
I dont think they accused him of gang rape, nor was he held for trial. They were questioning his moral character as a judge of the supreme court. I didnt follow the accusations much, but his performance in the congressional hearing was really bad. I questioned his competency, not his character.
Citizens United was decided along party lines with the much praised right wing judges unanimously supporting it. the result was that money=speech and thus wealthy people can "speak" alot more then the rest of us. Whether it was anti hillary or whoever, it was a very bad result for the people. I will look for other bills linked to lawmakers as well, however the argument for it is a so called "cry for freedom", a freedom for the few that takes away the voice of many in their own government.
How much they raise and spend is a red herring. Money in necessary to run and win elections as per the current set up. The question what they do when they get into power, stop the money, or increase its influence.
Why would i ask a biologist about a *social* construct?
Would you ask a biologist about what movie to watch?
Wouldnt a *soci*ologist be the best person to ask about a *soci*al or *soci*etal question.
I have a feeling our dispute will be based more on definitions rather than policy, but i shall leave that to the debate.
A few facts.
People who associated with epstein include, clinton, trump, a british royal, many other powerful and wealthy people.
Some claim bill clinton is guilty of murder because he associated with them, wouldnt that mean all of the people who associated with him are equally guilty?
Claiming it must be the person you disagree with politically, even tho multiple suspects have the same connection is the most pathetic example of being a partisan hack.
I would be against the democratic party if i believed half the propaganda right wing sites spread about it. Unfortunately, blatant lies and anecdotal claims are not very convincing. I would reevaluate your opinion of democrats based less off of claims from right wing sites and anecdotal idiots on the street, like that trans guy making a freakout in a video. Idiots exist on both sides, no prominent democrat promotes mandating/policing language, although individuals do have the right to whine in public (free speech).
Your very first point about lobbying and the influence of money is something i STRONGLY agree with. I consider it the primary thing wrong with our nation, and eliminating it will ease the partisan divide and make all other solutions easier. Unfortunately i blame the right for this problem, and although Democrats play the money game just as much, it is the Republicans that pass the laws allowing that in spite of democratic opposition. For example, citizens united was passed and supported by republicans along party lines. The republican corruption is not based off individual corrupt politicians, but an organized corrupt platform with the goal of limiting the power of most average people. I consider that treason.
The policies that lead to blue states to be economic successes and red states to essentially require federal welfare.
Also the policies that resulted in consistently better economic performance under democratic presidents vs republican presidents. I know a president has limited effect, but if there is a consistent pattern across numerous presidencies, it makes for a stronger point.
Please, accept the debate if you are interested. All evidence will be presented.