The BBC is reporting about the same result. Well except for the "fancy a shag" minority.
The BBC is reporting about the same result. Well except for the "fancy a shag" minority.
When you say "intellect-nots" and talk of shortages of "smart employees", you mean there are too many people who don't want to code intrusive ads to sell sell sell, right? Maybe you're the one who's not so smart, looking for robotic employees you're too stupid to code.
Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.
To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.
Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?
Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.
Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.
Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.
Nobody is stealing your money - you're paying taxes.
- wrong, income taxes are legalised theft of life, creativity, time on this planet. It is slavery imposed by the violence of the collective on behalf of those, who perceive it to be to their advantage, whether it is so or not and against those, who are in a minority. This is how income taxes started in USA in the first place, top 2% of people were forced to be paid up to 7% of their income in taxes so that the vast majority wouldn't have to pay alcohol and some import taxes anymore (of-course the result is that everybody pays insane amounts of taxes, both on income side and on consumption).
The rest of us will recognize your right to retain the rest of your property if you recognize your responsibility to help care for the indigent
- wrong, nobody has any responsibilities towards anybody unless they are your children, then you have responsibility to them.
If you don't do your part, then why should I recognize that you have any right to own property at all?
- because it is in your best interest to recognise that if I cannot own property, then neither can you.
That's what society used to be: very few people owned any property, everybody belonged to the select few, who had the so called 'birth right' to it. You couldn't earn property, you could only be born into it or be given it by somebody who was born into it.
Meritocracy is a much more fair system to everybody, except for those, who lost that birth right of-course.
But, call it theft if you like. It really doesn't change the fact that you have no choice but to comply.
- wrong. I do not comply, I use the 5 flag strategy to ensure that something like you has a very limited access to my property.
I imagine that you'd be a little less lofty in your views if you had one of those irresponsible parents. Heck, some kids don't have any parents/family at all.
The fact is that all the property/etc you've worked so hard to obtain is only yours as the result of you having been born to parents who raised you well, and who gave you genes that allow you to support yourself.
- parents, fine. That is none of anybody's business.
What you are born with physically is of nobody's business.
Absent either of those, and especially absent the latter, you'd be as well-off as an ape that shares 98% of your genetics.
- I am yet to see an ape that is forced to pay income taxes.
As a result, I certainly have no moral issues with requiring anybody with the ability to take care of themselves to spend some of their effort taking care of others, using force if they do not wish to do so.
- irrelevant what you have or have no moral issues with. I already know what your 'morality' is. Socialist/Marxis morality is violence and theft, nothing else. I have no qualms and no doubts about your level of 'morality' and thus I do what I can to avoid such as yourself.
Your claim that I am a 'terrible human being' noted. So what does that make you given the fact that your claim is based on my comment, which states that no human should be forced to be a slave to another human by anybody, especially by the violent power of the state?
What does that make you, a 'better' human being, to want to use the violent power of the state to force people to give up portion of their live involuntarily for any supposed benefit of anybody at all or for any reason whatsoever for that matter?
At the very minimum it makes your position extremely inconsistent within itself, claiming that being what you are a 'better' comparing to what I am, while declaring that people need to be forced by violence (that is what state is - violence), subjugated to the will of the collective and not be allowed to decide how to control their own lives?
Then again, no socialist ideas are consistent within themselves. The so called 'green' socialists are of the opinion that people are destroying the planet. They want to use the violent power of the state to subjugate the individuals, to turn their productivity to the state, so that the state would decide what to do with it, supposedly for the benefit of the environment somehow (while the worst damage to the environment comes from the operation of the state, nuclear disasters, wars, pollution). They do not see the inconsistency of their ideas at all. They want the state to control the resources, but obviously for the state to do so, it needs to throw bones to the subjects, the bones being subsidies.
So tax those, who are productive, steal their productivity (lives, time on this planet, creativity) and allow the state to subsidise others? How is that consistent with the 'green' ideology, which is of the opinion that human activities cause ecological problems on this planet? They would be consistent if they in fact decided to completely remove subsidies, we get more of what we subsidise.
Providing subsidies causes an influx in births, those who live on subsidies do not have to care as much how to provide for the offspring, their birth rates are higher. It is an inconsistent position to provide for more subsidies from those, who already control their own birth rates to those, who will not if given subsidies.
But of-course socialist positions are never consistent.
As a side note, I have formed my opinions on this matter over 30 years ago, I only read Ayn Rand's novels out of curiosity maybe 2 or 3 years ago, I don't need anybody to form my opinions for me, which is, by the way, why I am an individual, not an ant in a colony.
That's harsh I remember when a 3 day weather forecast was crazy talk, not they do 10 day with reasonable accuracy.
Of course, the suffer from pedantics in they if they say it's going to be 93, and it's actually 94, people are like see, wrong again!
They do OK here in Colorado during the top of summer and the bottom of winter. Spring and fall they might get the current conditions right if they looked out the door... but it would probably change before they could report it. But they still try to do a 7 or 10 day forecast. Once in a while they get it right but don't plan on it.
I know what you do NOT do, you do NOT put a gun to OTHER people's had to steal their money from them to 'help' anybody whatsoever under any circumstances. No amount of misery can be justified to destroy individual freedom.
If a person is irresponsible and has children, too bad for those children, however that's what other family members are for. Beyond that there are private organisations that try to help children. Governments cause massive pain for children by destroying the economy that they and their parents live in.
You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.
- government has no place in anything that private individuals need and provide for themselves and others absent government.
Energy, clothing, food, shelter, education, transportation, roads, schools, investments, entertainment, mail, anything at all that people need, individuals need, individuals, people create and once they create it, if others like it, they can also buy these solutions from the individuals that created it. That is what businesses are: individuals solving individual problems that become solutions for the entire societies.
Your complete lack of understanding of these simple realities of life and your dogmatic belief in something 'grander' than you are, are blinding you and obviously somebody so blinded cannot see the forest for the trees. "Libertarian" is just a moniker. The point is individual freedom.
Free people create stuff based on their own creativity.
Slaves only work hard enough not to get beat up too much (just enough not to be taxed too much).
Looks to me you prefer a 'society' of scared, ignorant children rather than a society of grown up people actually thinking for themselves and building stuff they need and trading with other grown ups for stuff they built.
Two very different things: why does the universe exist and how did the universe come to exist. There is no why for the universe. It is. Looking for a why is what theists do.
Clarifying the clarification: I was only attempting to answer the question, "Why do atheists flock to science?" My answer was simply that, rather than arguing something vacuous, they simply say, "Meh, the scientific explanation will do for me." That is hardly flocking but just throwing a "good enough" explanation back at the theist that they will hopefully leave us alone.
Last year's winter was not fun in PA. We had basically no summer, with very few hot days. I suspect this winter will be a little worse.
Same here in Colorado. We had a cool, wet summer. I think we only had one day that broke 100F. Saved a bunch on the water bill though. Barely had to water the lawn.
There, now I'm a weather man!
No. You have a better chance of being right.
So 'unfortunately' if you are going to build a product that people may need and enjoy you are going to start a business, that may create new products and create investment opportunities and jobs in the process, you are going to 'siphon'? 'Siphon' talent away from government ('and everybody else')?????
This 'story' is one gigantic flamebait.
There is nothing unfortunate about building your own company to pursue your own goals and you are not siphoning anything from anybody by building your own business. Under all circumstances, it is better if government doesn't get any talent whatsoever, why should talent be wasted in government rather than be applied where it is actually needed: in the private sector, doing something useful?
This entire premise is insane and asinine.
I am an atheist because I do not believe in anything supernatural.
AFAIC if something has no evidence it may or may not exist, however if a belief requires me to accept possibility of unnatural phenomena I am going to reject it completely until such time that it is actually shown to be true repeatedly and without possibility of being faked.
If you show me a magic trick, pull out a bunny out of a hat and claim that there was no bunny hidden anywhere near you and anywhere near the hat and the bunny simply appeared out of nowhere because you willed it to appear, I want to study you and the hat and the bunny. I want to figure out what makes it possible for you to achieve that effect (and how it can be replicated and possibly used for other things, like pulling electrical power out of a hat or something). I suspect that if such a thing happened and somebody was pulling bunnies out of hats, we would eventually figure out how it was done and by figuring it out we would remove the 'unknown' and the 'unnatural' or 'supernatural' about it.
I do not believe in things that are seemingly impossible, and when somebody claims something impossible, I want a serious study of that, not something based on feelings and reading of scriptures, but actual delving into the reasons behind it.
What's wrong with saying 'I don't know?' Demanding that atheists know how the Universe came to be seems just as wrong as demanding that you explain how God came to be. Except that the atheists can at least claim to have at least some evidence that the Universe exists (even if it could all be false), so they can at least start their search for an answer with relatively solid footing.
If you are in a normal discussion as to how something knowable works but of which you have no knowledge, saying "I don't know," would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, quite a few of the "true believers" seem to take someone saying, "I don't know," in this context as an invitation to be "educated" with their particular mystical explanation. So, unless you want to hear the current mystical explanation, just say the scientific explanation works well enough for you and let them expend their energies attacking that. It's usually much more entertaining than the lesson you get with "I don't know."
Maybe, "I'm OK with not knowing," would work better than "I don't know." Trying to convey that you're more comfortable with a blank slate than one that is filled with mystical gobbledy-gook is hard to get across to those who embrace the mystical gobbledy-gook.
Seems silly to point out but, if you don't believe some god created the universe, life, etc. then you need some explanation for the universe around us and us as observers of that universe. The flying spaghetti monster is one alternative but it sort of makes sense that quite a few atheists will just say that the scientific explanation of the universe works for them; no more, no less. It's not something to be carried on your sleeve. I'd hardly call that "flocking to science." I haven't heard of too many militant atheists picketing some religious get together with signs saying, "Believe in string theory!" or "Quantum Gravity has the Answer!"
"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works!" -- from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse