There probably hasn't been a real free market for quite a time.
2) So what if jesus existed ? That would be a human which died. the rest the miracle the resurrection are myth. In fact since we are speaking of historical consensus, all historian will recognize that the consensus is that it was a really normal human and he died. The rest is religious baggage. The best proof that I am not desperate as you pretend I am , is that I assign a higher probability of jesus existence as human (60%). . That alone directly contradict your diatribe.
3) and finally, you are reversing the "reverse the burden of proof" fallacy of most religious people. We agnostic-atheist do not search for proof of non-existence, it would be rather hard for obvious reason. It is up to others to bring up evidence of their claim. And therein is the problem. Even if there is weak evidence for the existence of jesus, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of anything else.
The ultimate honesty, is to admit in this specigfic case, that we do not know, but most probably a human at the origin of all the myth existed. Anybody telling you there is a "consensus" of historian, really exagerate the case here. There are many historical figure older than jesus for which we have a LOT of physical and written evidence. For jesus ? Nothing practically beyond the bible. Even Josephus is recognized as dubious, most probably a fraud. And nobody else reported the existence of the guy. That said carrier and other "full" mythicist haven't shown anything reliable in the academic arena (and no a book do not count --- peer review do).
Draw you own conclusion. Me after reading a lot of the litterature I am split 60/50. 60% chance he existed, 40% chance it was either a composite (more than 1 persons) or an elaborate myth.
Don't worry -- at least half a dozen of your friends are working hard to make sure you are not forgotten (posting and tagging fotos, marking "I know this person from..." questions, etc.)
Solution : don't have friend
The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms. This particular rule may or may not be a good idea, but the healthy thing for society is to look at all new regulation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion.
You have got to be joking. The same right-wing that is calling for anti-abortion law across all the state where they have uncontested power? The same right-wing that is taking away the right to vote in the same states?
What he meant to write is : "The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms for white male middle and high class christian people. This particular rule may or may not be a good idea, but the healthy thing for society is to look at all new regulation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion."
Which in context of your protest and latest tea party/right wing political action make sense.
And a few other article insunuating that actually the book was a group/commityn produce, which explain the disparity of quality, and style with the follow up book.
My opinion is that Orson scott card was always an asshat, and the whole book was *very* itnentionally a disguised nazi apologia.
As learned from the traditional book/eBook publisher, the biggest cost of publication is not the printing, it is the correcting, the formating, and the setting in a correct format. *all* of that is handled during the review, or for the format by the maker of the article. They don't even have to provide advance in money tow rite the article, since the article are given for free. The biggest hurdle might be to organize stuff around like the peer review, but compared to normal publishing this is *nothing* in cost. Now try to compare the cost of a normal book to the cost of *EACH* article online. And try to tell us those cost are for the publishing. That's a big fat lie.
(*) replace me with any young person wanting later to go into politic, or being in a firm attempting to contract bid or whatever.