Jump to content

dimreepr

Senior Members
  • Posts

    13378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Posts posted by dimreepr

  1. Come on delbert, play the game, your flat denial at every turn and no supportive evidence, doesn’t further the argument; what it does do, is show you as ignorant of, not only, the economics but also a deep ignorance of your fellow man in terms of empathy and understanding.

     

    Basically “put up or shut up”.

  2. As for the argument that if guns weren't available criminals would just use knives, pipes, bats, etc I disagree. One of the main driving forces for people doing anything is often convieneince or ease. The easier something is to do the more likely people are to do it and vice versa. Easier hiking trails are more well traveled than hard one. It isnt complicated to understand. Robbing a taxi drive or store clerk with a pipe isn't easy as doing it with a gun therefore less people ould be willing to try it.

     

     

    And less people would die.

  3. There will always be people ( or money lenders ) who try to take advantage of other people, but it is the greed of the latter which enables this.

     

     

    This sentence is a little ambiguous given the tone of the post.

     

    Do you mean the greed of people who want to live a comfortable life (who wouldn’t) is the enablers (your choice given the context)?

     

    Or

     

    Do you mean the money lenders, who prey on the vulnerable and week willed (my choice)?

  4. There’re many religious scientists, Mondie, including some of the giants of science; would you really put them in the same category as these nut jobs?


    The point is groups like the KKK have a hate filled agenda and used the bible as means to legitimise the hate by cherry picking ambiguous passages, of which there are many (caused by time and translation), and twist the meaning to their needs.

     

    IOW it’s people that diminish religion not the book.

  5. Indeed, but that doesn't seem to help.

     

    I'm reasonably wealthy, white, male and live in the affluent West. I hardly need anyone to fight for my rights- I pretty much have them.

    So perhaps it would be better if I fought to the rights of those less well off than I am, and left them to fight for my rights.

    Obviously, their disadvantaged state means that they can't put a lot of effort into supporting me, but it hardly matters- I'm already doing OK.

    On the other hand, I'm relatively well placed to improve their lot.

    At worst, I don't lose much, and they gain a lot.

     

    Seems a better approach to me.

     

     

     

    Indeed it is...

     

    But my question isn’t so much ‘what can I gain’ from the fight but ‘what can WE gain’ from it.

  6. Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

     

     

    Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

  7. I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now. We can't even ban military grade assault weapons.

    I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.

     

     

    This answer seems to show the gulf in cultural thinking between America and the rest of the world. Why, for instance, settle on “5 firearms” rather than one and “when not in use” has a very limited definition.

  8. Well, of course I wouldn't be happy to starve - who would. But the fault would still be mine for not being astute enough to spot that the person was an idiot and or a liar.

     

    I'm sorry, but that is, and must be, the facts. That's called taking responsibility for decisions we make.

     

    I'm sorry, but we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of what we do. Although and in contrast, from what I seem to see and read in the media, divorcing ourselves from the consequences of what we do seems fashionable these days.

     

     

     

    So the average citizen must be blamed for not being bright enough to spot a professional Politian’s lies?

     

    Given your monochromic view of the world I have serious doubts of your abilities in that area.

     

    Of course we are responsible for our actions but when those actions are by another, who may have deceived/coerced to gain your approval, they cease to be our actions.

  9. A potentially attainable technology is, perhaps, a photovoltaic cell that could be printed onto, something like, vinyl and so could be applied to the entire house/building rather than just the roof.

     

    "May be plentiful in the middle of the Sahara desert , but distribution to where you want it is very very difficult ."

     

    The point is your idea has exactly the same issues but with no immediate method to solve them whereas at least my idea builds on working tech; meaning it works now, can be applied now and at no, excessive, cost .

  10. Both. I'm sorry, but they voted for a liar (your word). If we vote a lunatic into power and the lunatic makes a complete Horlicks of everything, who is to blame? I say the voters.

     

     

    So if you voted for a liar or idiot (not that they advertise that information) and he/she bugger things up, you’d be happy to starve?

     

     

    Voting is a serious business. We get what we vote for.

     

     

     

    Not everyone does.

  11. It is interesting that Sunlight, which is a composite group of high frequency electro magnetic waves are themselves falling to earth, say on a human body at 1000 watts ( 1 kilowatt ) of energy over each square meter , which is approximately a human flattened out . This is of course at very very high frequency , which is penetrating .

     

    So compared to my long waves ( comparatively low frequency - much less penetrating ) of 100 watts ( 0.1 kilowatt ) per square meter .

    I think we could accept this showering of energy from above a good thing ?

     

    Mike

     

     

    What you seem to be proposing is a high cost uncertain technology to send ten times less energy to earth than the sun already provides and that we can already collect; so my question is why?

  12. If seems we are forgetting we live in a democracy. If the people elect a government that takes them to purgatory then, I'm sorry, but they can't complain.

     

     

    But to return to democracy. The Greeks had a referendum a week or so back which said NO. So I presume the Greek politicians will adhere to that result. No! Do you mean they won't keep a promise?

     

     

    You can’t have it both ways:

     

    The Greeks should be held to account because they voted for the gov that buggered things up.

     

    If the Greeks were lied to why should they be made to suffer?

     

    So which is it?

     

    Besides why should those that didn’t vote for the gov be made to suffer?

  13. Yeah, AI would only have trouble with emotion if no one bothered to program in a simulation of emotional response. Which makes sense, because why would you for most things that you'd use an AI for? But that's not the same thing as their being unable to do so if we wanted them to.

     

    And if you want to see some creativity, look at what Google's image-processing AI has been doing recently with some tweaked setting. It's produced some real Dali-eat-your-heart-out work.

     

     

    But however sophisticated the simulation and however intelligent the machine it will never understand a human.

    Because it will understand the conditions in which an emotional response is present but will never feel the emotion.

  14.  

    However, has religion ever helped?

     

     

     

    In the early days, more so than now, I have absolutely no doubt religion has helped many people, greatly.

    My only real objection to religion, other than genocide in its name, is its desire to convert everyone; even when those they seek to convert share the same basic beliefs (whether through god or other).

  15. Not everything worth fighting for is a right. I would fight to save my marriage (were it in trouble) but that doesn't mean I have the right to keep it (or even to be married in the first place).

     

    So which question are you trying to answer - what's worth fighting for, or what rights are worth fighting for?

     

     

    I'm asking the question, not trying to answer it.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.