zapatos

I might be missing your point, but are you saying that entities (such as governments) shouldn't be held liable for misdeeds if their funds come from people who have no choice but to contribute? But if you do have a choice whether or not to contribute to the entity, then the entity can be held liable?

So the profits don't come from their customers?

Using that argument no one should ever be held responsible for anything. Ford can say they shouldn't have to compensate for exploding gas tanks in Pintos because the money to pay compensation comes from customers.

This argument appeals to many because it puts the blame on people long dead. But reparations isn't about you and me giving money to blacks. Reparations is typically focused on the government making up for the role they played, and the government is not dead and therefore cannot escape culpability.

We always have a can of Easy Cheez in our house. Of course the only thing we use it for is coating the pills we have to get the dogs to eat. Works great for that!

There is no one point. You roll together societal norms, the preference of key individuals, image, the weather, average salary, the location, expectations of clients and customers, daily activities, exposure to others, your product, how others dress, religion, tradition and a million other factors, shake them all together and out pops a dress code.

What about your suggestion that 'business casual' being the most strict? What about your feeling that 'scantily clad' is not acceptable? Your personal preference seems to reside between business casual at the high end and scantily clad at the low end.

So you start by criticizing dress codes set by others, then set a dress code yourself. You 'imagine' one dress code, another person 'imagines' another. What makes yours preferable?

Yes, by definition a sample is limited.

No

Sorry, but a quick off-topic question: If the extent of time that the ball has zero velocity is zero seconds, does this mean that that the ball is always moving in its flight, even at the top of its path when it has a velocity of zero?

A car, plane, boat and submarine are usually used for different types of transportation, so we are better off if they're separate.

I don't think you have a thorough understanding of how business works.

I think there is little question that given time, the right people, and a great deal of money you could develop such a vehicle. The problem is that it would be out of the price range of nearly everyone in the world, would not perform any function as well as a purpose built vehicle, and would be primarily used for only one (maybe two) functions. I can make something that is a knife, fork and spoon at the same time, but why would I?

Then don't make it. No one else did.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. Massive objects collide directly every day. There is nothing special about a black hole that would prevent such an occurrence.

No. That is what got us a geocentric view of the universe.

It is also not made of wood. What does that have to do with anything? You asked if "speed is directly proportional to transparency".

I saw a plane flying overhead and could clearly make it out, even though it was moving much faster than fan blades.

The surface...

I guess I don't see any of the messages, consistent or not, providing any amount of validity to the existence of God. To suggest that a consistent story told by people increases the likelihood of God, means that you accept that those stories may be derived from God or his communication with those people who tell their story. I do not accept that premise. All messages we hear from people appear to me to be coming from people, not God. A consistent message only tells me that those people began with a similar background.

How does it weaken the case for them? What makes you believe Gods would provide a consistent message across place and time? Would you mind providing a link? Primarily what I find is his doubt that Jesus really existed. Thanks.

Who exactly are we talking about that says that. How does that prove there is no God? Maybe that is proof that Gods always acts uniquely.

No. Not everything is subject to human validation, and even if we do validate it, it is colored by a human's imperfect, limited, and biased view of the universe. Is a virus alive or is it not?

I might consider gravity a force, or I might consider gravity as the curvature of spacetime. I might consider a virus and a prion to be alive or not. Unfortunately 'precise logic, definitions and facts' are subject to human convention and interpretation, and to confuse things further, not all humans (or scientists for that matter) agree with each other.