n8nrgim

There's also burn out to consider. A person might be willing to donate a fifty spot, but where do they draw the line? Eventually a person will stop being willing to donate even if they can cause a lot of good change. This is important in itself but also highlights that finding the most worthy causes is important. 

I like the idea. I also like prizes for private sector to compete on maximizing overall wellbeing.

I also like making donation and charity more culturally relevant, like an expectation fir even ordinary Joe's or status for ordinary Joe's. Or as sex appeal for average joes

ron might be able to win against the dems, cause dems can't pick decent opponents. but it shouldn't be hard to beat desantis. all he really amounts to is being a troll on social issues, there's not much substance to the guy. 

the gospel of john is poetic, and discusses mysteries that depend on the context. i mean you are citing verses that you claim are contradicting each other right in the same chapter or thereabouts or the same book, i would think you'd give the book a little more credit and find something more of a slam dunk. why didnt you find something more clear like "moses was a jew" v "moses was not a jew". ? it looks like you aren't even trying to be open minded about context or interpretation. 

1. i mean the trinity is a contradiction itself by human standards. it's a mystery. if you don't accept that it has to be understood deeper, than you can find all sorts of verses that talk about the differenent persons in a different way and conclude it dont make sense. jesus is God, the father is God, but they are both God. in the sense that jesus is his own person, the father can be considered greater, but in the sense that they are both God, they are both equal. 

-a few analogies i use to understand the trinity. a three leaf clover, three parts yet one. a father and brother, in one person we find a father a son and a brother. multi dimensions, in this dimension Jesus reigns, in heaven the father reigns, and the holy spirit has its own dimension. even if the son is in heaven, he is of earth, so he's a visitor to the other dimension even if he's God. 

i understand by earthly standards the trinity doesn't make sense, but you have to be open minded. 

2.  jesus wasn't a judge in his earthly ministry, but he will be a judge when at the end of time. 

3. in the sense that no one under jewish law no one can consider one witness adequate, jesus understands his own testimony isn't considered adequate. but he also understands in another sense that even though that's the case, what he says is true, that's just the way it is. 

i think you need to find clearer examples and be more open minded to different contexts and interpretations. 

My hunch is the site likes darts format the best. That seems to be a big draw for me too

i already stated my position. my position is that there are things that look like they are probably contradictions, but they depend on how you interpret them. if your position is that there are clear contradictions, i asked for three examples that someone is willing to defend to be clear contradictions. you are the one dancing around the topic. either put up, or shut up. 

There r debate sites that r more active, like debate Island. Depends on how u define 'best'

https://www.makeuseof.com/best-debate-sites/

you just did what i pointed out that skeptics do, and spammed a long list of contradictions that include a lotta fluff. can't you do as i requested and pick your strongest three and then defend your position?

can you prove otherwise? usually when this topic comes up, atheists just spam a bunch of alleged contradictions, but they all depend on how you interpret them. they let the debate get lost in the weeds, and they never prove the bible is full of contradictions like they claim it is.so, instead of spamming, can you find three clear contradictions that you are willing to fight are clear contradictions? 

my position is also that it looks like there are a few contradictions and errors, but it depends on how you interpret the bible. for example, jesus said no one has ascended to heaven but the father, but the old testament says two men were taken up by a whirl wind to heaven. this looks like a contradiction. apologists say jesus meant no one has gone to heaven with their own strength and those two old testament men were taken up by whirlwind, not with their own strength. this superficially looks like a cop out, but it depends on the original language of the bible and how you interpret it. 

i think the healthiest way to hobby politically, is to keep abreast of the major topics in the news, and how it fits into your world view. and have a few well developed ideas on political topics that interest you, so that you can contribute to public discourse in a way that you desire. getting stuck nonstop watching cable news for the latest details isn't healthy, but doing it a little can be fun and healthy. being a tool that picks fights all the time isn't healthy, but learning when to pick a fight is healthy and educated individuals should be able to do so when the time is right. 

i think you and Roosevelt will get along just dandy 

There's a whole subculture about dating that could go with this. 80 percent of women only fight for twenty percent of guys. Really, incel culture has a lot to add... ya sometimes they go too far, but they gotta Lotta truth too

if you dont believe a word of it, that's just your bias. the government says it was critical and they talk about the subjects that were involved, which sound critical. i mean you might be right that it wasn't critical, but that's just you choosing to ignore what the government is signaling. your motive in ignoring it, could only be that you lack objectivity.

do you acknowledge that trump's behavior at least looks unethical? 

is there evidence trump was trying to make money off it? i read an article that said he was trying to have source documents so he can prove he's right when arguing with people... it was ego related. i guess i do suppose that that's a little weak for a reason for why he'd take all the documents though. 

i really dont know what he was trying to accomplish in taking all those docs. 

i wouldn't vote for the guy, but even i can relate to the MAGA, and have a little maga in me too. if i say 'fuck it let's watch the world burn', it's only cause i'm partly MAGA myself. except, i recognize it's not a virtue and can still think objectively... the virus hasn't completely destroyed my brain. 

this is my favorite definition of the term 'trumpanzee'

are you at least capable of acknowledging that trump acted unethically and irresponsibly? 

even if trump didn't commit a crime, are you capable of at least acknowledging that trump acted irresponsibly and unethically? i would guess that you would rather let your emotions dictate your views and want to rush to trump's defense, end of story. and of course as always add something that doesn't have anything to do with the issue. 

too bad the MAGAs are so bad at thinking objectively, where instead they let emotions dictate how they view political issues

cause i'm a hater

i'm sympathetic to the idea that trump was president, so he can declassify whatever he wants as he wishes. even on the stuff that it didn't matter if it was classified that he wasn't suppose to have, he was still the president. that's why i'm more on the side that it was a witch hunt on the meatier charges. but obstruction of justice is different... trump had very critical docs it sounds like, and when the government tried to get them back and fix the situation, trump evaded them and tried to hide and obscure things. for that, even if we concluded that trump didnt commit a crime,it still should have been a crime that deserved punishment. this is existential and critical information we're dealing with and trump acted irresponsibly. i think the only way a person could think he didn't do anything wrong, at least ethically, is if they are clouded with bias and can't see clearly. 

it might be better to do an analysis of joe biden v trump and the classified material biden had at his house and such.  that's the comparison the trumpanzees usually bring up. 

the bible says Jesus said some people will experience eternal punishment. i do still think though that hell can be temporary for some people, or like purgatory. I would think God wouldn't give eternal consequences for temporary misconduct, so I would think eternal punishment is only for those who eternally separate themselves from God. we do have free will, after all. or, if the possibility for eternal life for all is true, there will always be a stain on our lives for how we act, even if we are redeemed, a stain that could still be eternal even though we're saved. 

I also think God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like, you can't just keep eating a bunch of cake and not expect to gain weight. except, the consequences are spiritual when it comes to the ways of God. if you have low vibrations and are sinful, you will experiences low vibrations and consequences to sin, and a less fulfilled life. 

how do you view hell? is that an indication of conditional love? personally, i the way i handle it, is to say God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like you can't eat cake non stop and expect to stay skinny, only in a spiritual sense. 

God hates fags... thus, Best.Korea hates fags, too 

if God hates homos, does that mean it's fair to infer that you too hate homos? 

this thread is comical in how stupid it is. i know that wasn't the author's intent, though. 

how about left wing terrorists?

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

normally, people usually split constitutional interpretation into two camps, 'living constitution' and 'originalism'. living constitution means we can use our modern perceptions and values to determine what the text means, whereas originalism means we should only interpret the text to mean what was originally intended. 

a new version i've come across is 'dynamic originalism'. this means that the core principles orginally intended should be preserved, but modern changes in context can allow for a different application of the text. i think the new justice jackson on the supreme court follows this philosophy. 

so for example. originally, interracial marriage could be banned by law.  but, the original context was that interracial meaning was immoral or unbliclical or that black people were inferior. but, modern sensibility differs with that. only rarely do people think blacks are inferior or that it's all immoral or unbliblical. the core value of the bible, or morality, can still be a guiding light, even though the context is different. 

so what do ya'll think?

is this just a back door end run around the power of originalist thinking? i'm sure there's lots of examples where it would seem reasonable to change the application of text based on changing contexts, such as with search and seizure and probable cause etc. my guess is when you get into the weeds, it would become muddled or blurry if one were to espouse 'dynamic originalism'. 

if north korea wasn't always talking about killing other countries, maybe they could have more autonomy. it's like when i use to wonder why iran shouldn't get nukes... then someone pointed out to me, if these countries weren't so hostile it would be fair. but as it is, they can suck a dick. 

good well thought out arguments 

if you're not a teenager, you have the mind of one. if you have a degree in economics, it's from a shit university or you barely scraped by. i didn't graduate with a degree in economics, but i was an honor's graduate who got an A in a graduate level economics class from a competitive university. 

you have too many incoherent and ignorant points to respond to.  you're a lost cause. 

you didn't answer how old you are. you must be close to being a teenager, or at least you have the thought process of a teenager. out of touch with reality. 

you are proving you know nothing of how the rich avoid taxes. what i'm stating is a fact. they borrow very low interest loans so they can avoid paying taxes on capital gains and so they can make profit on the income they didn't realize by selling. you are just proving you have stupid theories and that you are ignorant. there's a thing called google.... go educate yourself. 

how old are you? that's one of the stupidest most touch with reality posts i've ever seen on this site.

taxing rich people, i mean very rich... would hardly change anything at all other than increasing tax revenue. someone like jeff bezos doesnt barely pays taxes because he has stocks and no realized capital gains. if he actually had to pay a tax on the things he buys through loans, it's super small fries compared to his wealth. i mean, even if he spent a hundred million a year from loans, which is on the high side for a billionaire, he's still paying only maybe 40 million tax tops out of his 100 - 200 billion wealth. 

a consumption tax is in addition to a sales tax. it's an attempt to tax the rich people's wealth, indirectly. just taxing the sales tax amount is very weak and ineffective at drawing money from them. it's only directed at rich people, in my way of doing things. 

"In that case, they'd be borrowing against assets they already have—accounting for the interest and taxes, they'd be borrowing significantly less than the value of their assets. This is not a net gain for them, because they'd be able to buy more by just liquidating their assets instead of borrowing."

rich people borrow because it is a net gain for them. they borrow at one percent interest a year, while they keep their money invested, where their investment increases at twenty percent a year. it's never a net gain for them to sell their assets, cause they then have to pay income tax on it, and they can't make profit if they sell the assets. 

we could just raise taxes on our progressive tax system. that might fulfill my desire for more taxes from the rich. but it wouldn't directly address people who go their whole life without paying taxes, or paying very little in taxes. to you it's about some ideal efficiency in our tax system not to go after them directly, not to tax things other than income... but the bigger picture is that everyone should have to chip in a more standard amount. if they just borrow money their whole life and never have income... they could get rich and never pay taxes. that's just unfair. i think u just need to be willing to think outside the box a little more. it sounds like you suppose progressive taxes, so it's a modest and logical step to support meager consumption taxes and wealth taxes. (and for rich people, a higher capital gains tax)

"They have to pay it back eventually or go bankrupt. For that, they need income, on which they will pay taxes."

id rather they pay taxes during their life. with your system, they could just borrow money their whole life and wait for their estate to pay it back when they die

billionaires probably aren't going to go broke. but either way, why not take tax from their consumption and wealth? what harm is there? if they go broke eventually, at least they helped support the government with meager taxes. these aren't huge things i'm asking for. most likely, they will either be just as rich when they die, or maybe a little more or less... still all the more reason they should have to support their government in the form of taxes 

the rich can borrow money their whole life and never pay a penny in taxes. why do you support this?  a two percent wealth tax is meager, and is only trying to get at people who pay little or nothing in taxes. why do you not support that? for some reason, you keep making bare assertions that you just dont like the idea of them paying anything other than an income tax... but you keep not supporting your arguments with philsophy or barely any reasons. why do you care so much about rich people who pay nothing in taxes? 

a person like jeff bezos can go his whole life without paying taxes. for some reason that you won't get into, you think this is just a fine outcome. you are not doing a good job arguing why we shouldn't try to get more taxes out of those who avoid paying taxes yet get rich. they're using loop holes. and on the wealth tax, why does it matter that they might lose it all some day? they might they might not. either way they should still be contributing meaningfully to the country. as it is, because of your vision, they can go their whole life without paying anything. you need to argue the philosophy better about why you care so much about rich people who dont pay much in taxes. 

my intention is only for the rich to pay a consumption tax 

why should the rich be able to use borrowing money as a loop hole to not pay taxes?

why do you care about saving them money? shouldn't we be more worried about the rich paying their fair share? you seem more worried about me making the rules different for the rich than everyone else, but why do you care to begin with? if we have a progressive system as our base, wouldn't our system be more consistent on those values, if we tried to get rid of all these loop holes? isn't it more fundamentally fair to make sure that the rich contribute to our society? the way it is, they could go most their lives without even paying taxes. that's ridiculous. 

i'm just calling it what it is, by dictionary definitions. a progressive system is where the rich pay a higher percent of tax than everyone else. or higher amount in general. and it's regressive when the rich pay less. that's just the dictionary definition. 

well, i'm kind of advocating a wealth tax and a consumption tax, and i'd even advocate an ordinary income tax rate on capital gains at for a high enough amount. i know i'm being scatter shot about my proposals, i'll have to reorganize them and reargue them later. 

according to you, our current capital gain taxes should be adequate as it is. but you are not doing a good job arguing why the rich should pay less in taxes than everyone else... why they should pay less as a percent than their secretary. why they should be able to use borrowing as a loop hole. you need to argue the philosophy of why we should be worried so much about the rich.