Total posts: 1,002
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
if i'm making the general claim that all guns kill people, then you are making the general claim that all people kill people. you are being irrelevant, as usual. actually, sometimes guns kill people, but you'd rather play word games and semantics. when there's a gun murder, the person killed someone, the gun did, and the bullet did as well. that's a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
if someone makes person A mad when they are driving and person A has a gun... doesn't it stand to reason that person A is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than if they dont? if two people are arguing, and someone has a gun, doesn't it stand to reason that someone is more likely to die than if neither had a gun?
and if ya'll want to get stupid about it... gun actually do kill people. the person involved killed someone, the gun did, and the bullet did as well. literally, that's the truth. but ya'll would rather play games than address the real issues.
ya'll are just irrational and idiotic, that's all this boils down to.
Created:
yes, guns are more likely to be used than non-guns. but that doesn't explain why non gun murders are not wildly out of control in the usa. ya'll should just admit, that if your theory that this is just a bad person problem, that non-gun murders should be wildly out of whack too. ya'll should just admit, that the while it's possible your explanation explains the situation, the data goes against your theory.
it's not far fetched to think gun cause people to kill when they otherwise wouldn't... that's all this is getting at. look at two people arguing, and ask if they had a gun whether someone would be more likely to die or not.... of course someone is more likely to die. it's idiotic to suggest otherwise, and to pretend that the presence of so many guns makes no difference in the murder rate.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's a good argument too. both my theory and yours are probably at play, but one would think your theory is more fitting.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
"One thing no one seems to have an answer for though: gun ownership didn’t really get markedly huge until the 1970’s. What caused that large increase?"
my guess is the politicization of the NRA. around the time you mention, the NRA went from nonpolitical, to political, and started feeding propaganda to the population.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
it should be compared to non USA countries. if this is a bad person problem, and not a gun problem.... non gun murders should be at a wildly higher rate in the USA than non USA countries. but what we see is a similar rate to other countries. the only stat that is out of whack in the USA is gun murders, which indicates this is almost surely a gun problem, not just a bad person problem. bad people would be more likely to kill with knives and other weopons too, if this is just a bad person problem.
i mean it's common sense. take any argument between people. consider what would happen in group A that has a gun, and group B that doesn't have a gun. it's idiotic to argue the prescence of a gun makes no difference in an argument. but, folks like to pretend the having guns around makes no difference on the murder rate. absolutely idiotic.
Created:
this thread seems topical. of course, folks will continue to ignore why non-gun murders aren't wildly out of whack, just like gun murders are wildly out of whack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
you may be right... i really dont know. i never considered those verses that talk about 'ceasing' in that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
1 Corinthians
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
9 Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
i mean you can say speaking in tongues isn't for modern man, but the most straightforward interpretation is that the bible would indicate it is. dont you think?
Created:
Posted in:
this guy does a good job arguing how liberal christians are really a religion unto themselves
that is ultimately true, but every conservative chrisitan decides in their own way what is right... they disagree with tens of thousand of different belief structures.
if one posits that maybe the bible isn't the word for word word of God, then it's reasonable to consider alternative views. the guy in the link said liberal christians dont hold the bible to be true, so they cant call themselves christian... but why must the bible be true for Jesus and the religion to be true?
personally, i believe what the bible says unless i have a reason not to. that means i'm actually pretty orthodox. some things dont seem to make sense, but why throw the baby out with the bath water?
christianity is compelling in general. the apostles died for their faith. you dont see that every day. early historians called jesus a magician due to what people said about him. it was considered a fact and it's consensus that Jesus actually existed. read the new testament... it's a very authentic sounding narrative. it's compelling the poetry they speak. other religions dont have that... islam is about getting virgins at death and chopping heads off. buddism is just a philosophy and doesn't claim truth. i dont know much about hindu but it seems very random. christian NDEs with near death experiences are common... other religions are almost non existant. things that look like miraculous healings happen a lot to chrisitans... it's unheard of for atheists or other religions. christianity is about doing good and having good relationships... things science says makes for meaningful life.
my point... christianity is a compelling religion. why does the bible need to be true for the religion to be true?
Created:
i also realize that trump's lawyer plead guilty, but i wonder about the context of that guilty plea... like, did he do it just to negotiate and avoid a witch hunt against him?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
if trump used campaign money to pay the hush money, couldn't the government say that he used campaign funds for a non-election purpose? don't you think that that would have looked way more scandalous? that the government can get him no matter what he does, if they disagree with how to characterize it?
i realize that your point is that he was suppose to report it no matter the purpose, but i guess my only point in response is that that seems like a technicality and trivial. it's like going after bill clinton for lying about an affair and his personal life, except trump didn't even lie.
Created:
trump paid hush money to someone, a porn star, that he had sex with. his critics say that that was a move to influence his presidential campaign, so he should have used campaign funds. this seems like a technicality, something not worth pursuing. plus, i dont know the legal details, but using campaign money to pay a porn star doesn't sound legit. it looks illegal to use campaign funds for non election purposes... so basically trump could have been prosecuted no matter what he did, but the path they're arguing he should have done, looks way more preposterous.
""The idea that a routine private settlement, unconnected to any campaign activity, is a criminal offense because the settlement should have been paid with official campaign funds is the most preposterous, ludicrous, idiotic, indefensible, fraudulent “legal theory” conceivable.
"Under this “theory,” candidates must use federal campaign funds for private, personal or corporate matters—an exact inversion of federal law. Indeed, DOJ prosecutes those who use campaign funds for expressly non-campaign purposes. Of course, the “theory” is all bogus pretext.
"No serious human believes that Manhattan DA’s office believes any of this. They understand this is a purely partisan exercise in vengefully prosecuting a political enemy precisely as is done is repressive third world nations, despotic regimes and marxist authoritarian states."
i can understand rand paul... this is a witch hunt, and if anyone should go to jail, it's the district attorney who brought this case.
thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
i guess there is the point, that jesus said 'forgive them they know not what they do'.... i was focusing on the know not what they do part, but the fact that Jesus asked for them to be forgiven, probably means that they committed a sin, even if they are ignorant. i never looked at it that way.
Created:
i mostly use the atlantic and new york times and PBS. the times have biases in their editorial section, but they are mostly trustworthy. i also like newsweek, time magazine. wall street journal, washington post, the economist. there are a lot more, but these come to top of mind.
when i think of die hard trump supporters, i think of not just fox news, but a lot of random youtube videos and websites that no one's ever heard of. or random memes and hearsay that needs fact checked. i do recognize that there are educated trump supporters who know how to vouch for a source's credibility.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
it's fun watching you fight against all these brainwashed idiots. you may be a little biased yourself, but you are nothing like these guys. i call them trumpanzees and MAGAts. short trump speak for chimpanzees and maggots.
Created:
Posted in:
it's bad at the very least because there is a plausible argument that all abortion is murder.
philosophically, smashing a snowball isn't smashing a snowman. so maybe killing some cells isn't killing a person. but, snowballs dont themselves create snowmen. those early cells do themselves create humans. plus those cells have all the DNA necessary to make a human and they are living cells. they are in fact a human organism, or at the very least an organism.
so there are plausible arguments that it's not murder or wrong, but there's enough basis to call any abortion as immoral due to the uncertainty.
Created:
Posted in:
jesus said 'forgive them father, they know not what they do'
but if you look around on the internet, a lot of people say that a person acting ignorantly can still commit a sin.
i always looked at sinning as 'intentionally doing what you know is wrong'. this involves intention and knowledge, something that resides in one's mind, as an opposite of ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
"AMA lobby will never allow this."
u r probably right. doesnt mean my ideas are bad, or that they can't be done.
just like the zoning lobby in my other thread... special interests are destroying america. and stopping crooked politicians from doing common sense things to stop the damage.
Created:
Posted in:
i suppose keeping healthcare from rising beyond inflation is just one part of it.
i think most people would agree that there should be more competition with hosptials, and start allowing doctor owned hospitals. this would help tremendously.
Created:
Posted in:
the CDC says obesity costs less than two hundred billion a year. you guys are right that it's significant, but it pales in comparison to the trillions we can save just by changing the way we pay for care.
the usa spends 18 percent of its GDP on healthcare. other country spend about ten percent or less. that difference amounts to pushing two trillion a year. it's a fact that the main reason they pay less, is because they regulate costs more whereas we do not. also insurance companies are middlemen who provide little value and much waste. insurance eats up a third of a dollars spent on healthcare, on adminstrative costs, whereas medicare only spends 3 percent on adiministration
did you guys even read my link in my opening post? do you guys ever read or google for actual figures to back up what ya'll say? i think the main issue people are having with my arguments is that they are ignorant and have no desire to change that.
if you want someone credible to back up my arguments, notice that orogami said he agreed with my healthcare proposal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you're not even making sense any more. i'm actually kind of worried about your mental health. you talk like someone who damaged his brain from years of drug abuse. i'm not even trying to be mean spirited... just being probably overly blunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
do you ever actually look at the national budget? you always bring up these small fry cost problems.
we have a meager welfare state compared to other countries, and our defense spending as a percent of GDP is relatively stable. healthcare is the only big one and the only real wild card.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
it probably won't happen due to what you state... but that doesn't mean my idea is bad, or that it can't be done
Created:
Posted in:
it's just a matter of spreading awareness and having the political will to do it
both the government and our citizens can be saved economically
healthcare is the only issue that could potentially bankrupt the country, and this thread tackles that issue too
affordable housing solution - bring back boarding houses with a drug search waiver
affordable healthcare solution - grow healthcare costs at or less than inflation and make insurance companies non-profit
affordable education solution - stop giving out loans and instead require limited percent of income plans
Created:
-->
@oromagi
what do you think of my amended proposal? what about specifically the drug search aspect?
Created:
the solution, is boarding houses, that require a waiver of privacy rights when it comes to drug searches.
a person gets a room. they share kitchens and living areas and bathrooms. the government lends money to non-profit organizations to build and maintain these boarding houses. that takes out the profit motive and corruption. residents pay a third of their income for costs... if they dont have much income, or no income, they dont pay much. this means the only ones who are homeless... is drug addicts who refuse to submit, and dangerous criminals, and dangerous mentally ill people. maybe these people can be taken care of on a case by case basis, but these guys are their own category which i acknowledge my solutions dont solve.
instead of flat out paying people's rent like the government does now, and doing nothing about affordability, boarding houses bring back economical structures. we probably already spend enough money on housing, to instead lend out money that's going to be repaid to the government eventually anyway.
the highest ranked debater here pointed out that when you put a bunch of poor people together, it causes social ills and stuff like drug problems and destroys the whole cost savings paradigm. that killed my idea for a solution before... but now my solution to, is for residents to waive their rights to not be searched. drug searches can happen at will, and randomly, and arbitrarily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"The short answer is that a "might makes right" democracy allows for no diversity of thought."
that is a well stated argument.
Created:
Posted in:
i can understand giving minorities representation, but i think the senate is adequate for that. something as powerful as the presidency should be based on majority vote... every vote should be equal.
Created:
Posted in:
every vote should be equal. everyone intuitively knows this. yet, when you point out to a pro electoral college person that the college makes votes not equal, you can then watch them contort themselves into all kinds of shapes. most of these people have never really truly grappled with the fact that the college makes vote unequal, and pointing it out is a good way to catch them off guard. of course, humans are too prone to stick to their guns even if it dont make sense, so they force the issue.
bottom line. someone in california should have as much voting power as someone in north dakota. the electoral college makes this not the case. that's why it should be abolished.
Created:
Posted in:
some people say truth is relative. well, relative is a relative word. but truth is not arbitrary.
maybe there are exceptions to rules, but the rules and the exceptions are clear. killing others for no reason is bad. maybe there are situations where killing others is justifiable, but that doesn't mean killing isn't clearly wrong, in general. whether killing is justifiable isn't subject to just some duede's whims, it's not arbitrary.
maybe i'm saying truth is objective, i dont know. i dont know what the basis for truth is, other than maybe a higher power or God. well, maybe an objective reality beyond God could exist, that is the basis for objective truth. i dont know if we mere humans can know what all the truths are, but that truth exists shouldn't be the issue.
just some ramblings i had that i thought id see what folks thought.
Created:
Posted in:
i think anything after Jesus is more important than anything before jesus. id read to the new testament from beginning to end. there might be a better overall strategy, but that one seems pretty solid, beginning to end.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
if the government isn't throwing money at the problem by just paying what colleges charge, and is keeping them in check by forcing them a limited amount, then tuition won't grow out of hand.
i dont know where you came with that 'insurance is killing everything' point. way out of left field. it's one of those conservative talking points that only come up whenever conservatives want to panacea cover everything issue that is supposedly the root of all evil. you should read up on this issue.... the government throwing money at this issue is 90 percent of the problem. i dont know where your insurance issue ranks but i can't wrap my mind around how it would rank very high on costs. when our parents went to school, it was super cheap. then the government got involved and started writing checks with no regulation about it.... it's an obvious cause and effect situation.
are you very young? your 'insurance is the problem' sounds like something someone would say who has no perspective on this problem, like a young person.
Created:
this link has the good doctor addressing the stupid arguments he's heard....
i'm not trying to avoid addressing stupid arguments myself, but that should take care of a lot of it.
Created:
just because smart people dont believe in the afterlife doesn't mean much. most of them are ignorant of the information in this thread. i acknowledge that it's common for skeptics to remain skeptics after learning of the evidence... but the far and away most who hear this evidence are convinced it's evidence, at the very least. i would guess most skeptics at least come around to acknowleding the evidence. read reviews online and you will see that for yourself. the skeptics who can't be convinced this stuff is even evidence, just lack critical thinking. saying it's irrational is putting it nicely. it's actually wildly idiotic to deny this evidence, and the folks who do so need to go back to elementary school for basic logic and critical thinking. skepticism on this topic is mostly about ignorance, but there's a hefty amount of stupidity too.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
the only reason it costs so much is because the government stuck its nose in. when the government has an open check book to pay tuition, it causes costs to sky rocket. without government involvement, few would take on the risk of loaning money to students, because it's a bad credit risk. half of students shouldn't be there and wouldn't be able to afford paying tuitition creditors back anyway.
making college tuition free by paying the costs, is just throwing gas on the fire.
taking away loans and forcing colleges to accept a fixed percent changes everything. now, everyone can go, and the schools and students will adapt to the most efficient outcome they can muster.
you got your economic theories all mixed up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
because you say a lot of things that sound catholic, or generally orthodox instead of protestant. plus i know a lot about the catholic church, and used to be a catholic, so i would enjoy debating about Catholicism.
Created:
i would think five to ten percent of their income would be sufficient, per year, for ten years. no loans, just payments in the future. the government can give schools a net present value of estimated future payments, and collect the payments on income taxes.
this would incentavize colleges to make their students economically viable grads, which is what the end goal is anyway. they would focus more on practical skills. they might decide that four years and excessive unneeded classes aren't necessary, making it more efficient again. (though the government can require some very basic courses, like generic psychology and generic sociology and generic science etc etc and basic math and reading and writing) this also requires that students dont just get a free ride, but that they chip in on their own education, which would appeal to conservatives. students with not much intelligence or potential would be saw for who they are, and they would be found to be maximized to their potential by the school. majors that are worthless wont get as much money, and that would cause the system to adapt... maybe only the cream of the crop students should be doing humanities, and their would be a punishment of less money to both the student and school for allowing low skill students to go into the humanities. maybe a philosophy major will end up at mcdonalds, and neither he nor the school will benefit much. maybe the school wont accept stupid kids in the humanities.
the well off grads would pay more, who are the most economically viable ones. and the less economically viable ones would pay less. there's a certain justice to that, if that happens to fit your political ideology.
this proposal is an example of the kind of concrete solutions that politicitians should be working on. the beurocrats in washington have lost the policy in politics.
Created:
do you think it'd be beneficial to let people know how much the expenses are? that might, or might not, help people raise their contribution. i know another website and forum only costs 800 dollars a year, though of course that's a lot to someone who is struggling.
Created:
Posted in:
what is a hefa low? a hifa hefa low. i do oo nah ot a know. but i'm down with the clowns, and i'm out the window.... FUCK
Created:
Another line of evidence... almost all communication during ndes is telepathic. If these were just hallucinations, communication would be much more variable and include a lot more verbal styles.
It baffles the mind that folks don't consider this thread as evidence of the afterlife. Obviously it's due to a lack of critical thinking, and hardened hearts and darkened minds.
Created:
This thread needs rexamined simply because of how utterly pathetic the skeptic's arguments have been
Created:
Burn, baby, burn!
He puts the RAT in RATzinger!
That's a rat zinger!
Created:
Bah humbug
Created:
I'm a solid christian in my beliefs. I believe in the afterlife and that God is love. I have concluded that the best way reconcile all this is to say God loves everyone but there r consequences to our actions.
I grew up catholic so that catholic guilt colors my psyche. But beyond that, even focusing on the words of Jesus instead of the rest of the new testament can be disheartening. He said we r judged by how we act, we can't know we r saved, some sins r unforgivable. What do those of us think who know we r wretched sinners? Modern protestantism gives a different spin on all these issues, but if we take the gospels as they r, it can be very upsetting. No wonder there's so much depression and sorrow in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
every other country covers everyone at half the cost, with better wait times. so it can be done here too. the thing is, they started from scratch and built their healthcare systems from the ground up... not trying to redo a country like ours with a third of a billion people in it. what could happen if we tried to make it universal? the most obvious problem would be that the democrats dont do anything to get costs down first, or they cave when costs are contained with a medicare like pricing system. (which sets limits on how much can be spent) and speicial interests complain about it. the republicans could repeal any taxes that are used to pay for a new system. so it's definitely possible to bankrupt us based on health care... is what i'm getting at.
how do other countries spend half as much as we do? they mostly get it down to that level by regulating how much the government is willing to pay for each procedure, they regulate costs. they also minimize the role of insurance, which helps given insurance is a middle man that pays a third just in adminstrative costs instead of the two percent that medicare pays. (some hospitals have more staff to take care of billing than they do nurses, for instance)
if we're not doing more of these cost containing things, we're headed in the wrong direction.
if we dont do anything about costs, we could end up bankrupt switching to something universal. we only have ten percent of folks who are uninsured... which means it's not earth shattering if we didn't cover those few extra people. it would be earth shattering to borrow money to pay for it. that's why the emphasis shouldn't be on universal care, it should be on getting costs contained.
sometimes it is wise to be skeptical if a public option or universal plan could work... we're trying to redo an embedded system, and politicians are good at fucking things up. it's rational to only focus on getting costs contained...that's the biggest problem.
Created:
i think a lot of trump's tax returns have already been leaked by the new york times. i think what trump is trying to hide is how poor he is and the fact that the's gone so many years of paying no taxes.
Created:
-->
@Avery
I always liked the definition of racism to mean unjustifiable prejudice. Hate makes sense too but might not be broad enough
Created:
If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
Created: