Raider5678

If the light is absorbed it will exert a force. If it is reflected it will exert twice the force (conservation of momentum).

Thanks +1 simple and helpful.

The more key aspect of socialism is that of social ownership. Public property is a socialist concept. So public parks, public libraries, public schools, etc are all socialist institutions..

 

As are fire departments, police departments, highways, snow plows, and many other outstanding services.

Bad teacher lol.

 

So ONLY public things? Not your paycheck becoming everyone's to share, or everyone getting paid the same amount?

That may be accurate, but theirs NO plasma in the test. Look, the only thing that touches your mouth is the cotton swab. The other vials are securely protected and separated from the cotton swab, and if they DID manage to break, the doctor wouldn't have used them. If they had been placed on the cotton swab, you could pump gallons of the stuff into a bath tub, hop in, and not have a remote chance of getting hiv. They also don't use lab grown viruses to make the peptides, they are amino acids that bond easily to HIV, which makes them detect if there is HIV in your bodily fluids. And by the way, they wouldn't be able to survive manufacturing and shipping unless it became airborne, which it HASN'T, Just to be clear. So someone with HIV could have licked that thing, and you could have almost no chance of catching it. And since it wasn't licked, obviously, you are next to guaranteed to have not gotten it. Also, stop researching HIV, and anything related to it. That's feeding your OCD and making you scared about things that couldn't have happened.

 

What's wrong with Socialism? We have more of that than Communism, currently in the US.

I asked a teacher what Socialism was when I was in 2nd grade. Her explanation was that its a place where everyone is equal in more then just the fact that they are created equal. She said as an example, imagine 5 people applied for a college scholarship. There were 50 scholarships in the first place, but only 49 were left. The 5 kids were on different levels academically, 1 was failing, 1 had D's, 1 had C's, the next had B's, and the final had A's. The college scholarships would have to be evenly distributed. 10 to failing students, 10 to D's, 10 to C's, 10 to B's, 10 to A's. But the final one left would have to go to a failing student. So in a summary, nobody gets an advantage, even if they work harder then the other people. Thats how I learned it, and from what I have seen, that's what I still think it is. Is this wrong?

I've already said I think we're unbalanced now, that Capitalism has been given too much control and that has resulted in the corruption in our political process, as well as the wealth inequality that was unfairly engineered over the last half century. I can't agree about the decent balance point at all.

 

If we'd been dropped in this pot with the water on full boil, we wouldn't have stood for it and we would've hopped out. As it is, we've been sitting here in the pot, letting Big Business slowly turn up the heat incrementally, wages creeping away from their traditional ties to productivity. Middle class frogs.

 

 

Given what you've hopefully learned about Communism and our current situation, what about this blend of ideologies do you not like? We already use all three of the ones we've discussed, so why isn't it WAY better than a dictatorship?

 

 

See there? You're already a card-carrying Socialist Communist Capitalist! Welcome to New America!

Our ideas of a good balance may differ, but we agree that there should at least a mix of all 3.

In my own opinion, I like voting for presidents rather then letting a dictator rule in my opinion, by if you don't agree, I don't think theres much of an argument either of us could make to oppose each other. Though from reason your post it seems like your asking me why I changed my mind when I never did. Read that quote. I said its better then a dictatorship and you are asking me why its not better then a dictatorship....

 

And while we both agree that all governments eventually get corrupted, why does it matter if it slowly got more corrupted? All governments eventually get here if they live long enough, so its not like its better then communism.

 

And as a final point before I back out of this political discussion, I think the best ideals for a government would be mostly capatilist, some communism and a tiny bit of socialism.

Of course, we both know the big picture is that you can't judge people in such broad strokes as "good" and "bad", not if you want to discuss anything meaningful about them. You certainly can't claim any single ideology is good or bad. Modern societies are heavily nuanced with many layers of complexity. These ideologies are tools to be used wisely, knowing they're capable of great harm as well as good.

 

I would argue that the US has too much Capitalist influence, and has for the last 50 years. We're unbalanced because of it, and we need to be smart about how we fix that. The problem is bad, it's caused a lot of wealth disparity, and it's clear to many that this is the time for more socialistic and even communistic strategies. Whenever we've been strongest as a nation (the last time under Eisenhower), the balance between these ideologies has been much better. We can't afford to let any single one get the upper hand, otherwise we know, we know for sure it will turn out bad for us.

This, I agree with. Though I think Capitalist influence is slightly better then the 1900s, with child labor laws having to be passed, labor laws, some good laws were passed in my opinion, though I think we are a a fairly decently balanced point currently. The corrupt political problem on the other hand..... Not really doing the best. People with more money tend to have more say. Do you agree?

Every governmental system has to overcome corruption to be successful; democracy seems to provide the best chance.

 

Unfortunately the corrupt have fear as ‘a weapon of mass destruction’; maybe that destructive power will create a populace that’s less fearful which evolves, hopefully, into a communistic democracy.

A communistic democracy...... I'm not liking that idea very much, but I guess its better then a dictatorship.

 

 

I think having the State handle education, energy, the military, and healthcare is enough. I don't think we could implement much else until our society starts believing that we're all worth it. Right now, there are too many discriminators who want to judge who is worthy and get rid of the rest somehow.

Education, energy, military, and healthcare. Thats about all imo.

Um, no.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Internal_consistency

http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

[mp][/mp]

 

Science certainly helps us to guard against and even minimize our various cognitive biases, but it unfortunately doesn't eliminate them. We're still just hairless apes that have evolved to make decisions with our guts, take shortcuts where possible, and we tend to prefer and have an almost unconscious predisposition toward accepting simple narratives over the more recent enlightenment values of empiricism and skepticism.

 

I was looking at the site until I saw THIS at the top.

 

These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes

appropriate sense to do this.

 

 

 

"Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God."

That's because we have more sense than to try to prove a negative. It rather misses the point that it's the God squad making the extraordinary claim- that there's a God- so it their job to prove that He does exist.

 

Did you think you had made a point there?

"Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does. "

Nope, it does not add up.

http://bibviz.com/

That's an advertisement site that's selling anti bible posters.... They make money searching for ANYTHING that could even come CLOSE to a contradiction, or something that didn't line up to modern morals. To be honest, a lot of past laws don't line up with modern morals, like SLAVERY for example. Are you going to say that ALL past countries up until modern times were evil because they had slaves?

All of reality is a little bit larger than the earth

 

Assuming things to be true locally is very different from assuming them to be true everywhere.

Dude, none of your arguments are making sense. By hey, I want to play. I can't see you, so you don't exist. You know, its kind of hard living life by that logic huh?

The creation for example. The universe took 6 days to create according to the Torah/Bible. It doesn't just say 6 days, it is specific about what happened on each day. This includes the creation of light on Earth before the creation of the sun. This conflicts with the evidence we now have regarding the age of the universe and how things happened. So in order to keep their beliefs, religious people will claim these particular passages are not meant to be taken literally but "metaphorically".

 

The Bible also claims there was a global flood, for which not only is there not evidence, but the evidence we have negates this claim. It also claims that bats are birds and that rabbits chew their cud, both of which are false. So when these books get the answer totally wrong it becomes a "metaphor" or "not to be taken literally". Doing this ensures religious people that they can keep their beliefs and still accept science.The beliefs then become elastic and useless. When there is a conflict between what these holy books say and what science says, science always ends up being correct and the books have to have their "meaning" shifted accordingly in order to scale with science. This is how religious scientists must go about things if they are to be any kind of scientist and remain religious.

Huh, I always thought fire gave off light too. I guess it conflicts with science. Oh well.

 

There also evidence of a "super tsunami" that might be the great flood.

 

And classes of things don't really count. For a LONG time people classified anything that flew and wasn't an insect a bird, so if after a while we separated everything, would the bible have to magically change too? It worked until we separate mammals and reptiles.

 

http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

 

Yeah, you see the Hebrew language wasn't the most advanced. To them, hand ment from your finger tips to your elbow, which what, your going to claim the bible is wrong because the Hebrew language doesn't translate well?

It seems to me that in order to make books like the Torah/Bible compatible with science, you have to nuance and reinterpret what the books say so that they seem to fit with the evidence. When the books say something that is just demonstrably incorrect, religious people say it must be understood "metaphorically" or "not literally", but when they say things that seem correct in both scientific and moral terms, no one says it is meant to be a metaphor, they usually take it as literal. At this point the religious belief becomes elastic and useless. If you're just going to bend and stretch what it says to conform with the evidence and what we understand from science, then the belief is USELESS and is not really providing you with anything worthwhile.

Any examples?

IOW, if things were different, they'd be different.

 

Trivially true, and of no actual useful content.

Evil liar

Not really. That thought experiment was just something that had occured to me and I got the stupid idea of mentioning it. My bad.

Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God. As in christian. Have at it. Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does. Its kind of hard to understand, and I'm sure some atheist scientist on this site will claim "Russell's teacup!" or something, but that's my personal opinion. Now this is religion, but as for science, most of these guys know what they're talking about, but if its not science, then it turns the same way most debates turn. Just into an argument that doesn't get anywhere.

You asserted, "I'm a Capitalist", and I commented that you aren't 100% Capitalist if you're an American. I then proceeded to support my comment with examples as evidence. I think you missed the part where I was describing Americans, not you specifically. You're a bit defensive, imo.

Mmhmm. From the post following that one, it seemed like you were just gonna run off and assume I'm 100% capitalist.

 

Anyway, since just about everyone agreed that Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin were some bad examples of communism, and while they did accomplish some good, they mostly did bad, unless you want to argue? Your kind of good at missing the big picture. So lets bring up our next candidate. Kim Jong-un. Does anyone think he is good at what he does?

The problem with saying that you're an "ist" is that you wind up having to own the whole ideology. I'm not an anything-ist, except possibly a pragmatist with an idealistic streak. Or maybe an idealist with a pragmatic streak.

 

In any case, I find that associating yourself with any ideology tends to narrow your thinking in an unproductive way with few to no advantages to offset the cost. Taking on an ideology as an identifier makes you resistant to the idea that that ideology can be wrong, because if it's an aspect of who you are then if it is wrong, it means you are wrong as a person and people don't like to be wrong on a fundamental level.

 

Ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not based on whether they are ascribed to your "team" or not. And the only way to avoid that kind of thinking is to avoid picking a team. Once you assign yourself a team, there's not much you can do to keep it from biasing your thinking no matter how objective you think you can be.

Good point.

I'll try and stay neutral next time. Either way, I like capitalist ideals, but I'm not a capitalist from here on out. I also like a few good communist ideals, like actually spending tax payers money on something that can help, like roads, bridges, etc. As for Phi I'm trying to figure out which team hes on.

You aren't a 100% Capitalist if you're an American, I guarantee you. There's some Socialist mixed in there, and some Communist too.

 

At which point did I claim to be 100% capatilist? Its also funny how you ignore my 2 most recent post but you will gladly dig around foe something to divert attention from the main point.

 

Either way, I agree 100% capatilism isn't that great, but I can't say i'm "50% capatilist, 12% Communist" etc. What I meant by that i's that for the most part I like capatilist ideals. I figured you would have the commonsense to figure that out.

 

P.S. now you implied that I'm 100% capatilist, thanks a lot.

 

Phi, let's be fair, it's entirely possible that he thinks there should be a toll booth at the end of his driveway and the corner of every street so that we can fairly compensate the rightful owners of those properties for our use of their facilities at whatever rate the market will allow.

How much would you be willing to pay to legally drive off of your own property, do you think?

 

Uh hu.... Nice, real nice Delta. Refer to my previous point.

 

Perhaps one day I'll understand what it's like to live in a one-dimensional binary world like you and how simple it makes all things. Until that inglorious day arrives, I'll sadly remain forced to continue residing in the multi-variable calculus spectrum embedded existence we call reality.

I'm assuming you weren't risen against your current "multi-variabled calculus spectrum embedded existence" idea. Which would mean you live in a "one dimension all binary world" too. Because anything we say will be completely overridden by your stuborness that your parents political point is the ONLY way. I will always understand what its like.

 

P.S. I'm on a tablet, which probably means typos and grammar mistakes. Please DO NOT point them out, I will fix them later.

1.1 million... over what time period? Never mind, doesn't matter. It's all red herrings anyway. The core point is that even though they're not perfect they have realized some success and it's ignorant to dismiss that outright out of some fear of the term.

Some success. Mostly just bad.

 

Also why do people down vote just because somebody doesn't immediately convert to their political ideas. Sounds like cuba. Only 1 political opinion or else -.-

The Communist Manifesto is only a little over 150 years old. That's a rather high bar to clear, even if I didn't think a mixed economy worked better in any case.

Yeah, I like making the challenge hard to achieve. Makes my argument seem better when certain people who don't think quite like you look at it. Considering the other side of the argument does it, I just play alon and do it too. A lot like politics.

There are lots of reasons to criticize Stalin, but I feel somewhat compelled to point out that Britain and France also signed an agreement with Hitler to let him just straight up take over a portion of Czechoslovakia in order to avoid going to war with him.

They also signed a pact, that's true. Then they found out what Hitler was doing, as did the rest of the world, and offered support to poland should the Germans invade. Though it's also true just shouting Hitler doesn't make someone bad, if they killed 20 million people that kind of just makes them seem worse Personal opinion. Other then that I do agree with you.

 

Does anyone know of a country that successfully used communism? I mean, usually a government works for the first couple of years before corruption sets in, but do you know of any communist country that lasted more than 100 years before corruption basically FULLY ran the government?

1.1 million... over what time period? Never mind, doesn't matter. It's all red herrings anyway. The core point is that even though they're not perfect they have realized some success and it's ignorant to dismiss that outright out of some fear of the term.

I'm a capitalist. I am hired by someone, to do work, because they have the right to own a business because of capitalism. Now I'm not saying that all communist nations "nationalize"(makes it sound better then stealing huh?), but a considerate portion of them do. Also, no offense, but defending Fidel Castro doesn't seem like a good idea.. No offense. But fine, since Cuba and anything related to it is red herrings, then let's ignore the bad and the good. Let's talk Joseph Stalin. You know, the communist who killed 20,000,000 people? I'm sure your going to find some way to defend that portion of his actions, but let's see what he accomplished as a communist. Made men and women equal..... Not bad, pretty good. Forced them both to work on the same labor jobs...... not the best. Signed a nonaggression pact with HITLER.... Sounds fun, you know, not trying tostop Nazi's from murdering people.(I'm sure your gonna say they're just misunderstood, Killing anyone who's not a Ayrian is just one mistake right?) And he WAS a communist, so hes not a red herring.

Everyone... inside Cuba. You sure about that? Hyperbole, much?

My bad. I was eating lunch when I posted this. Replace "everyone" with "Cuban Refugees" Considering 1.1 million have fled.... Out of about 12 million Cubans...... IS that a large percentage or am I just imagining that?

 

You're talking about a complete takeover, but there are limited forms of Communism that seem to have merit. Do you think those should be ignored because some have abused them?

 

Castro didn't raise taxes on businesses. He nationalized all the businesses, making them part of the State. It stifled economic progress for quite a while (mostly because of embargoes), and left them dependent on the Soviet Union for economic and military aid. But Castro also deposed a military dictator. He abolished discrimination, brought electricity to the whole island, educated his people, focused on healthcare for all, and kept unemployment low. One has to wonder how his flavor of Communism might have fared if the US hadn't been so active in suppressing Cuba. Besides backing the former military dictator (Battista), the US also lost some businesses outright when Castro took them over and made them part of the State.

 

That's the biggest fear Capitalists have from Communism, imo, that sudden government takeover of everything you've worked for. But it's the extreme, it doesn't have to be about takeover. Yet it makes many shy away from anything to do with State ownership programs.

Ok...... I personally am wondering what everyone inside Cuba were thinking. I mean, I don't think they ran away, put their lives in danger, left loved ones, and crossed an ocean risking jail and torture for the rest of their life, just because the US said they were bad. I mean, that's just an opinion. But hey, free electricity!

The ones designed up to now do reflect sunlight, to

• Direct the thrust in the desired direction, most often not the one of incoming light
• Limit the heat, especially if the sail must go nearer to the Sun
• Increase the thrust when possible

Absorbing the incoming light would push always towards the Sun's opposite direction. Reflecting it creates a second push that can be directed, for instance forward on the orbit to brake the craft and let it lose altitude, say to go nearer to the Sun.

Newtons 2nd law right? Every action has a opposite reaction? Or something like that? I just know that if the light is bounced up it will exert force downward.

Thorham, why are you downvoting everyone of stranges comments? Downvoting them doesn't make them any less true, just saying.

 

Strange, anyway, yeah, nothing can move faster than light, and I won't try to explain my "philosophical" technical point lol. I wasn't saying something could move faster than light btw, so don't mistake that as me trying to argue with modern science, because I wasn't trying to.

How do the rich run out of money from an income tax, exactly?

Usually with communism the governments like to take over most businesses. To do this they put taxes on companies. This can lead to downsizing, or bankrupting companies. Cuba did this once Fidel Castro took over I think, but if it wasn't him, at some point they did.

I don't see it as political, just wrong. There is NO sense in which you would be going faster than light.

This isn't the political debate..... That's another topic...

Either way let's imagine time didn't slow down the faster you got. Light moves at 300S. You're in a ship and your traveling 400S somehow. Now you factor in time, and your both moving at the same speed.

S = 1,000,000 meters p/s

Well, the problem is that if you made a giant freezer company and gave em all away, and people would work there for an unemployment check, all the benefits that are flossing down stream need some water (money) to carry them down. The problem there is that they tax the rich to pay for it. Eventually the rich run out of money, and then what do you do? Send the country down a steep hill with lava at the bottom.

Which technical sense is that?

In the sense that you would be going faster then light if it weren't for time slowing down stopping you from going faster. I fear I have gotten into a DEEP political debate, so I won't be able to explain it into too much detail.