"Good thing I didn’t claim that, then, huh? Phew!"
Yes you did - that was the point of your Sowell quote. If that was not the point, the quote would have been a non-sequitur response, i.e. a non-response. Take your pick - you lose either way.
As a matter of fact you doubled down on it and confirmed it here:
"It is the argument, and it’s why I brought it up in the first place, since you didn’t understand it. It was Christians, leaders of business, and imperialists who ended slavery. These are the people so readily associated with conservatism. The “magical sky man-believers”, the “big corporations who think themselves people” and “racist bigots” are, in the eyes of leftists, “conservatives”, and thus is espoused anything against their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs."
The stupidity of this argument is breathtaking. Your claim outright is that any businessman, Christian and leader of business and imperial political leaders are "readily associated with conservatism" and therefore it was them who "ended slavery". That is facially wrong. Such people come in a spectrum from left to right. There are plenty of representatives of all those people who are and were famously liberal, even radical. As if needed - I also supplied plenty of examples of such figures and movements that everyone would have been familiar with... including the business leader who touched off this thread in the first place: Tim Cook. Yes, there are also plenty of conservatives in those occupations and positions - and it is those conservatives that liberals (not just leftists) have denounced. Just as Koch brothers are denounced by liberals, but Soros is not. It has always been liberals, whatever their occupation, who were the leaders and fighters for civil rights in any given era, and it was the conservatives who were always opposed.
"Thank you, again, for confirming that you have absolutely no rebuttal, refutation, or disproof of anything that I have posted."
And thank you, again, for confirming that it is you who has absolutely no rebuttal, refutation, or disproof of anything that I have posted. See?
I gave an exact analogy that exposed the fallacy of your argument.
The analogy is false; that’s why I said so.
Your response is to claim that I don't understand, while not actually providing an argument.
My response is that you don’t understand the difference between asexual and sexual species. That’s sort of a big problem. Your cherrypicking of the single point in that list that discredits the validity of homosexuality and the relationships formed thereof is only now being mentioned.
I notice that the initial post is now deleted. I’d love to know why. It doesn’t violate any of the site rules. It hurt some feelings, but that’s meaningless. The thread may as well be locked and all posts subsequent thereto deleted, as the discussion based on the deleted post is continuing. I guess if you can’t refute something, just hide it and hope it goes away, huh.
Yep. There is a spectrum:
Nope. Sorry. Delusions of the mind do not a real spectrum make.
I’d post the proof, but it will just be deleted. So thanks for the censorship.
I'll refer you to the the extensive argumentation that demolished all such claims in the following cases:
So you don’t have a reply. You don’t have an argument. You don’t have a rebuttal. Those court cases don’t refute what I presented. You refuse to acknowledge or refute what I presented. You won’t even explain how your cases refute what I presented, nor why you believe they do.
Yes you did - that was the point of your Sowell quote.
Nope. I already explained the point of that.
"It is the argument, and it’s why I brought it up in the first place, since you didn’t understand it. It was Christians, leaders of business, and imperialists who ended slavery. These are the people so readily associated with conservatism. The “magical sky man-believers”, the “big corporations who think themselves people” and “racist bigots” are, in the eyes of leftists, “conservatives”, and thus is espoused anything against their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs."
See, you even quoted it.
Your claim outright is that any businessman, Christian and leader of business and imperial political leaders are "readily associated with conservatism" and therefore it was them who "ended slavery".
Nope.
It has always been liberals, whatever their occupation, who were the leaders and fighters for civil rights in any given era, and it was the conservatives who were always opposed.
If all you have is repeating your initial incorrect statement, then that’s that.
And thank you, again, for confirming that it is you who has absolutely no rebuttal, refutation, or disproof of anything that I have posted. See?
Pretending there was no rebuttal (or getting it deleted) does not mean it was not posted. Sorry your feelings got hurt, but I’m not actually sorry they were hurt.
$350,000! Better pay up! Oh, the “kitchen needs some work” and “the bathroom is not functioning”. “I would not recommend anyone moving right in.”
Theoretically, though, shouldn’t the lack of buyers in the market pull the real estate prices down? I mean, how can a seller afford to sell a house that no one can buy? And how could buyers put up with prices they cannot possibly afford as though there’s no way... out... Wait a minute! Speaking of no way out, just take a 50 year mortgage with a variable interest rate on that little hovel! NOW you can “afford” it and the seller can keep his original price! Hooray! Prices don’t have to go down now! What could go wrong!
It might go unsold or someone might buy it, tear it down, and put something new up if the land value justifies it. San Francisco and surrounding area have a lot of other weird problems. Their zoning boards don't allow sufficient residential construction relative to the number of people employed within each of those respective areas.
Atheism is a belief system and a religion, so they also fall into the category of being gullible? If so I completely agree you. Or are atheist some sort of exception, which I wouldn't put it past you to say they are because they often have an irrationally high view of themselves and their belief.
Atheism is a belief system and a religion, so they also fall into the category of being gullible? If so I completely agree you. Or are atheist some sort of exception, which I wouldn't put it past you to say they are because they often have an irrationally high view of themselves and their belief.
There's no such thing as a 'burden of disproof.' As the person positively asserting the existence of a God, the burden of proof is on you. Man has invented over 2,800 deities throughout recorded history -- and not provided proof, or even compelling evidence, for the existence of any of them. In contrast to your evidence-free belief in God, there is strong scientific data, evidence if you will, to support the Big Bang theory.
Prove that the Big Bang occurred... Good luck! See my signature below. A secular noble prize winner understands the issue, and you think you know better than him?
Prove that the Big Bang occurred... Good luck! See my signature below. A secular noble prize winner understands the issue, and you think you know better than him?
So the only bit of science you can select to compare with believing in myths is the big bang? Really? You may not have noticed but science has had a modest few successes.
You can post million links. Just stop and think for yourself. As I started off by saying, does not believing in the tooth fairy qualify in your book as a religion? What part of 'not' don't you get?
So the only bit of science you can select to compare with believing in myths is the big bang? Really? You may not have noticed but science has had a modest few successes.
You may not have notice either, but there are many scientific reports, both secular (though they never claim it) and non secular, that actually confirm the historical accounts as defined in the Bible (note I didn't say prove, prove is too strong a word when speaking of origins)
You can post million links. Just stop and think for yourself. As I started off by saying, does not believing in the tooth fairy qualify in your book as a religion? What part of 'not' don't you get?
Nice ad hominem. Big Bang can also be regarded as tooth fairy. What part don't YOU get?
You can post million links. Just stop and think for yourself. As I started off by saying, does not believing in the tooth fairy qualify in your book as a religion? What part of 'not' don't you get?
The point is, if you read any of those links, is that in court it was decided that atheism is in fact a religion.
You can post million links. Just stop and think for yourself. As I started off by saying, does not believing in the tooth fairy qualify in your book as a religion? What part of 'not' don't you get?
The point is, if you read any of those links, is that in court it was decided that atheism is in fact a religion.
Firstly, just look up the definition of religion, and see if you can reconcile that with your comments.
Secondly, the court rulings really demonstrate the extent to which the pandering to religion has got out of hand. That an inmate should can petition for the right to set up an "Atheist Church" and obtain court support is hilarious and, I'd have guessed, a fine prank on his part, but also a sad comment on society. Atheism is, precisely, the rejection of religious belief, generally on the quite reasonable basis that there is no evidence to support it. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, asserting that the absence of belief is, itself, a belief system, not only makes no sense, it is a logical contradiction.
I often get the sense, in these kinds of discussions, that people who cling to beliefs are completely incapable of comprehending how others can get by without beliefs. Your insistence that they don't must simply be projection. Personally I feel that the need for beliefs is an indication of feeble-mindedness, but each to his own.
The point is, if you read any of those links, is that in court it was decided that atheism is in fact a religion.
That is the stupidist reasoning in those links since define what the meaning of "is" is.
I'll get my naughty cigar while you ponder why that intellectually challenged argument is more about Webster English definitions, than it is about wether you have a leg to stand on explaining to someone that is anti-organized religion that he/she/it belongs to one. Maybe in your book of definitions, but not any that I recognize that would casually slap me or anyone else in a labeled cage just for your convenience anyway. :smokey:
Note that this "church's" faq is littered with the word belief... Pretty big sign it's a belief system and requires faith... And is a religion! You can't prove what happened in the past so it requires faith that it happened a certain way. You trust science to give you that answer, I trust the eye witness account provided by God who also gave us the scientific method and who even makes science possible. *Shrug* believe what delusions you want. God is is willing to forgive, I just hope that someday you'll understand your need for Christ before it's too late. There are no more chances after you die.
What about the ones that can’t? Isn’t the business that was the start of this whole argument an example of that?
They will fail. I'm fine with that. I don't want to prop up non-viable businesses by supplementing their underpaid employees with my tax dollars.
Well, that’s nonsense. Getting more purchasing power would negate the need for more income.
What's nonsense is your fantasy world in which 80% of the public gets just 7% of the wealth and somehow, perhaps through the magic powers of unicorns, the dollar gain more purchasing power as the prices of goods and services go down, people's wages stay the same, and unemployment doesn't go up. You have provided no plausible explanation of how this could be made to happen.
I just ran our discussion by a summa cum laude Princeton graduate who took courses in macro and micro economics. She said you are absolutely incorrect. She also said that economists generally agree that U.S. inflation should be somewhere in the range of 2%-5% (close to the 1%-5% range I've been telling you). She added that economists believe that the unemployment should be about 4% for a healthy economy. She agrees with me that the problem is the increasing diversion of corporate profits away from workers and to the wealthy.
I’ve not made any statement about it, either way. I’ve just ignored it because it’s secondary to fixing the base problem.
That illustrates why most people believe that debating you is a waste of time; you seem to feel that you shall be the sole arbiter of what is "the base problem" -- facts, links, citations, and expert opinions be damned.
Why is it bad for inflation and wages to rise at a rate of 3% per year? How does that, in any way, reduce the purchasing power of the consumer? The "base problem" is that less of the country's GDP is going to workers and more of it is going to the wealthy. This is the problem:
It's got nothing to do with inflation. It has to do with the workers getting an ever shrinking slice of the pie.
If people aren’t working, they don’t have currency. If they don’t have currency, they can’t buy things at their previous prices. Thus the prices have to come down for them to be sold.
Congratulations, you just proposed another Great Depression as a way to fight poverty.
Nope, that’s a consequence of the system itself, not the cause.
There was nothing in "the system" that forced companies to pay less to employees while increasing CEO pay by triple digit percentages.
Or reduce the size of the currency pool.
How would reducing the size of the currency pool change how it is divided between the wealthy and the rest of society? When one person eats 7 slices of every large pizza that you share, leaving the other 8 of you to fight over how to divide up that one remaining piece, the answer isn't to order a smaller pizza.
There are, of course, other, serious problems relating to a currency pool that stays constant regardless of population, unemployment, GDP, trade imbalances, etc.
Honestly, I’d much prefer a currency that has its value set against a tangible physical object than one backed by faith. Because when there is no faith in that currency, it doesn’t matter how large or successful its economy is. Look at Zimbabwe. Printing in perpetuity (in response to implementing the IMF’s racist economic policies) to try to solve the problem of a collapse of valuation... And some think that QE 4 is around the corner.
Basing a currency on a limited-supply physical object (e.g., gold) results in wealthy people hoarding currency as they wait for the value to rise. That takes currency out of circulation, causing the value to rise faster. If you think that your employer is going to leave your pay rate constant as the value of each dollar rises, you're just kidding yourself.
Zimbabwe's answer to hyperinflation and a lack of faith in its currency has been to switch to the U.S. dollar:
What’s nonsense is your fantasy world in which 80% of the public gets just 7% of the wealth...
There you go again. I’ve made no comment on that scenario at all.
I just ran our discussion by a summa cum laude Princeton graduate who took courses in macro and micro economics.
Okay, that’s an appeal to authority from the outset.
Why the Federal Reserve aims for a 2% annual inflation rate
The problem’s just staring you in the face.
you seem to feel that you shall be the sole arbiter of what is "the base problem" -- facts, links, citations, and expert opinions be damned.
Except it’s fairly easy to see a single point from which all economic behavior is derived, so there’s quite plainly a single base problem.
The "base problem" is that less of the country's GDP is going to workers and more of it is going to the wealthy. This is the problem:
You’ve said that before, but that’s not it. That’s not the foundational problem with the economic system.
Congratulations, you just proposed another Great Depression as a way to fight poverty.
No, not really. I proposed getting rid of welfare.
There was nothing in "the system" that forced companies to pay less to employees while increasing CEO pay by triple digit percentages.
Nor should there be. Nor should there be anything in “the system” that limits the pay scale to any ratio or hard limit.
How would reducing the size of the currency pool change how it is divided between the wealthy and the rest of society?
It wouldn’t, but I made no comment to that effect.
There are, of course, other, serious problems relating to a currency pool that stays constant regardless of population, unemployment, GDP, trade imbalances, etc.
I suppose so, yes. I’d venture they’re not as bad as what we’ve experienced over the last 100 or so years.
Zimbabwe’s answer to hyperinflation and a lack of faith in its currency has been to switch to the U.S. dollar.
So to what do you propose switching when the US dollar loses its faith?
I have no idea what you're babbling about - I had nothing to do with any post being deleted. I'll refer you to my earlier post, where I pointed out that a good liberal fights for the rights of others, including those he may disagree with, and that includes fighting resolutely for the right of conservatives to express their views even if we wholly disagree with them.
Of course, I happen to believe that the more conservatives talk the more they expose just how poor their arguments are, so I would not be in favor of any erasures just for that reason alone. But all kidding aside, I take my principles seriously.
However, I can see that we are going in circles here. This is not a useful medium for establishing basic facts from first principles. When somebody is as deeply invested in a worldview as to resort to the quality of work represented by Family Council, a discussion would need to go back to most basic things, including establishing what is good methodology in social studies of sexuality and what is not. Clearly not practical on a forum.
When you make up your own definitions of what is political conservatism and liberalism, it's hard to have a discussion in a knowledge vacuum. A message board cannot substitute for the relevant education, no matter how patient the posters. I'm sure you'll feel the same way back. Which means issues cannot be resolved this way.
Perhaps, as an atheist, I can help you better understand why your beliefs about atheism being a "religion" or "belief system" are wrong.
The definition of atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of one or more deities (AKA gods). A lack of belief is not a "belief system." Not believing in Santa Claus is not a belief system and, thus, neither is not believing in a deity.
Nor is atheism a religion. Unlike a religion, atheism has no uniform beliefs, scripture, teachings, practices, rules, doctrines or dogma. There are no sacred or profane objects. There are no ritual acts or a moral code believed to be sanctioned by deities or "holy" figures. Atheism includes nothing even remotely similar to prayer or other forms of communication with supernatural beings. It does not purport to be a means of understanding our existence or explaining the mysteries of the universe.
Despite the propensity of some religious activists to redefine words to suit their agenda, atheism has neither neither "congregations" nor clergy. Arguing otherwise is like saying that a business meeting in an conference room is a "congregation" in a "church" and that the guy running the Powerpoint presentation is their "preacher."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Prove that the Big Bang occurred... Good luck! See my signature below. A secular noble[LOL!] prize winner understands the issue, and you think you know better than him?
I cannot, and need not, prove that it occurred. Scientists don't claim that it is scientific fact. It's a scientific theory. They believe it because it provides an explanation for the origins of the universe which fit in with our understanding of cosmology and evidence gathered through our observations (expansion rate of the universe, background radiation, even distribution of elements throughout the universe, etc.). All of that is consistent with the theory.
Comments
"Good thing I didn’t claim that, then, huh? Phew!"
Yes you did - that was the point of your Sowell quote. If that was not the point, the quote would have been a non-sequitur response, i.e. a non-response. Take your pick - you lose either way.
As a matter of fact you doubled down on it and confirmed it here:
"It is the argument, and it’s why I brought it up in the first place, since you didn’t understand it. It was Christians, leaders of business, and imperialists who ended slavery. These are the people so readily associated with conservatism. The “magical sky man-believers”, the “big corporations who think themselves people” and “racist bigots” are, in the eyes of leftists, “conservatives”, and thus is espoused anything against their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs."
The stupidity of this argument is breathtaking. Your claim outright is that any businessman, Christian and leader of business and imperial political leaders are "readily associated with conservatism" and therefore it was them who "ended slavery". That is facially wrong. Such people come in a spectrum from left to right. There are plenty of representatives of all those people who are and were famously liberal, even radical. As if needed - I also supplied plenty of examples of such figures and movements that everyone would have been familiar with... including the business leader who touched off this thread in the first place: Tim Cook. Yes, there are also plenty of conservatives in those occupations and positions - and it is those conservatives that liberals (not just leftists) have denounced. Just as Koch brothers are denounced by liberals, but Soros is not. It has always been liberals, whatever their occupation, who were the leaders and fighters for civil rights in any given era, and it was the conservatives who were always opposed.
"Thank you, again, for confirming that you have absolutely no rebuttal, refutation, or disproof of anything that I have posted."
And thank you, again, for confirming that it is you who has absolutely no rebuttal, refutation, or disproof of anything that I have posted. See?
I gave an exact analogy that exposed the fallacy of your argument.
The analogy is false; that’s why I said so.
My response is that you don’t understand the difference between asexual and sexual species. That’s sort of a big problem. Your cherrypicking of the single point in that list that discredits the validity of homosexuality and the relationships formed thereof is only now being mentioned.
I notice that the initial post is now deleted. I’d love to know why. It doesn’t violate any of the site rules. It hurt some feelings, but that’s meaningless. The thread may as well be locked and all posts subsequent thereto deleted, as the discussion based on the deleted post is continuing. I guess if you can’t refute something, just hide it and hope it goes away, huh.
Yep. There is a spectrum:
Nope. Sorry. Delusions of the mind do not a real spectrum make.
I’d post the proof, but it will just be deleted. So thanks for the censorship.
I'll refer you to the the extensive argumentation that demolished all such claims in the following cases:
So you don’t have a reply. You don’t have an argument. You don’t have a rebuttal. Those court cases don’t refute what I presented. You refuse to acknowledge or refute what I presented. You won’t even explain how your cases refute what I presented, nor why you believe they do.
Yes you did - that was the point of your Sowell quote.
Nope. I already explained the point of that.
"It is the argument, and it’s why I brought it up in the first place, since you didn’t understand it. It was Christians, leaders of business, and imperialists who ended slavery. These are the people so readily associated with conservatism. The “magical sky man-believers”, the “big corporations who think themselves people” and “racist bigots” are, in the eyes of leftists, “conservatives”, and thus is espoused anything against their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs."
See, you even quoted it.
Nope.
If all you have is repeating your initial incorrect statement, then that’s that.
Pretending there was no rebuttal (or getting it deleted) does not mean it was not posted. Sorry your feelings got hurt, but I’m not actually sorry they were hurt.
$350,000! Better pay up! Oh, the “kitchen needs some work” and “the bathroom is not functioning”. “I would not recommend anyone moving right in.”
Theoretically, though, shouldn’t the lack of buyers in the market pull the real estate prices down? I mean, how can a seller afford to sell a house that no one can buy? And how could buyers put up with prices they cannot possibly afford as though there’s no way... out... Wait a minute! Speaking of no way out, just take a 50 year mortgage with a variable interest rate on that little hovel! NOW you can “afford” it and the seller can keep his original price! Hooray! Prices don’t have to go down now! What could go wrong!
It might go unsold or someone might buy it, tear it down, and put something new up if the land value justifies it. San Francisco and surrounding area have a lot of other weird problems. Their zoning boards don't allow sufficient residential construction relative to the number of people employed within each of those respective areas.
Atheism is a belief system and a religion, so they also fall into the category of being gullible? If so I completely agree you. Or are atheist some sort of exception, which I wouldn't put it past you to say they are because they often have an irrationally high view of themselves and their belief.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/17/sorry-but-atheism-is-religion.html
No it isn't.
This a joke right? Come on it has to be? You say nonsense and back it up with a link to Fox News as your source. Brilliant, best laugh all day ...
'I don't believe in mythology' can hardly be a religion!
Prove that the Big Bang occurred... Good luck! See my signature below. A secular noble prize winner understands the issue, and you think you know better than him?
So the only bit of science you can select to compare with believing in myths is the big bang? Really? You may not have noticed but science has had a modest few successes.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/03/atheism-is-a-religion/
http://creation.mobi/atheism-a-religion
Want more?
You can post million links. Just stop and think for yourself. As I started off by saying, does not believing in the tooth fairy qualify in your book as a religion? What part of 'not' don't you get?
Nice ad hominem. Big Bang can also be regarded as tooth fairy. What part don't YOU get?
Firstly, just look up the definition of religion, and see if you can reconcile that with your comments.
Secondly, the court rulings really demonstrate the extent to which the pandering to religion has got out of hand. That an inmate should can petition for the right to set up an "Atheist Church" and obtain court support is hilarious and, I'd have guessed, a fine prank on his part, but also a sad comment on society. Atheism is, precisely, the rejection of religious belief, generally on the quite reasonable basis that there is no evidence to support it. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, asserting that the absence of belief is, itself, a belief system, not only makes no sense, it is a logical contradiction.
I often get the sense, in these kinds of discussions, that people who cling to beliefs are completely incapable of comprehending how others can get by without beliefs. Your insistence that they don't must simply be projection. Personally I feel that the need for beliefs is an indication of feeble-mindedness, but each to his own.
That is the stupidist reasoning in those links since define what the meaning of "is" is.
I'll get my naughty cigar while you ponder why that intellectually challenged argument is more about Webster English definitions, than it is about wether you have a leg to stand on explaining to someone that is anti-organized religion that he/she/it belongs to one. Maybe in your book of definitions, but not any that I recognize that would casually slap me or anyone else in a labeled cage just for your convenience anyway. :smokey:
http://firstchurchofatheism.org
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/
Note that this "church's" faq is littered with the word belief... Pretty big sign it's a belief system and requires faith... And is a religion! You can't prove what happened in the past so it requires faith that it happened a certain way. You trust science to give you that answer, I trust the eye witness account provided by God who also gave us the scientific method and who even makes science possible. *Shrug* believe what delusions you want. God is is willing to forgive, I just hope that someday you'll understand your need for Christ before it's too late. There are no more chances after you die.
What about the ones that can’t? Isn’t the business that was the start of this whole argument an example of that?
They will fail. I'm fine with that. I don't want to prop up non-viable businesses by supplementing their underpaid employees with my tax dollars.
What's nonsense is your fantasy world in which 80% of the public gets just 7% of the wealth and somehow, perhaps through the magic powers of unicorns, the dollar gain more purchasing power as the prices of goods and services go down, people's wages stay the same, and unemployment doesn't go up. You have provided no plausible explanation of how this could be made to happen.
I just ran our discussion by a summa cum laude Princeton graduate who took courses in macro and micro economics. She said you are absolutely incorrect. She also said that economists generally agree that U.S. inflation should be somewhere in the range of 2%-5% (close to the 1%-5% range I've been telling you). She added that economists believe that the unemployment should be about 4% for a healthy economy. She agrees with me that the problem is the increasing diversion of corporate profits away from workers and to the wealthy.
Why the Federal Reserve aims for a 2% annual inflation rate: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm
That illustrates why most people believe that debating you is a waste of time; you seem to feel that you shall be the sole arbiter of what is "the base problem" -- facts, links, citations, and expert opinions be damned.
Why is it bad for inflation and wages to rise at a rate of 3% per year? How does that, in any way, reduce the purchasing power of the consumer? The "base problem" is that less of the country's GDP is going to workers and more of it is going to the wealthy. This is the problem:
It's got nothing to do with inflation. It has to do with the workers getting an ever shrinking slice of the pie.
Congratulations, you just proposed another Great Depression as a way to fight poverty.
There was nothing in "the system" that forced companies to pay less to employees while increasing CEO pay by triple digit percentages.
How would reducing the size of the currency pool change how it is divided between the wealthy and the rest of society? When one person eats 7 slices of every large pizza that you share, leaving the other 8 of you to fight over how to divide up that one remaining piece, the answer isn't to order a smaller pizza.
There are, of course, other, serious problems relating to a currency pool that stays constant regardless of population, unemployment, GDP, trade imbalances, etc.
Basing a currency on a limited-supply physical object (e.g., gold) results in wealthy people hoarding currency as they wait for the value to rise. That takes currency out of circulation, causing the value to rise faster. If you think that your employer is going to leave your pay rate constant as the value of each dollar rises, you're just kidding yourself.
Zimbabwe's answer to hyperinflation and a lack of faith in its currency has been to switch to the U.S. dollar:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34d75e42-10e8-11e5-8413-00144feabdc0.html
What’s nonsense is your fantasy world in which 80% of the public gets just 7% of the wealth...
There you go again. I’ve made no comment on that scenario at all.
I just ran our discussion by a summa cum laude Princeton graduate who took courses in macro and micro economics.
Okay, that’s an appeal to authority from the outset.
Why the Federal Reserve aims for a 2% annual inflation rate
The problem’s just staring you in the face.
you seem to feel that you shall be the sole arbiter of what is "the base problem" -- facts, links, citations, and expert opinions be damned.
Except it’s fairly easy to see a single point from which all economic behavior is derived, so there’s quite plainly a single base problem.
You’ve said that before, but that’s not it. That’s not the foundational problem with the economic system.
No, not really. I proposed getting rid of welfare.
Nor should there be. Nor should there be anything in “the system” that limits the pay scale to any ratio or hard limit.
It wouldn’t, but I made no comment to that effect.
There are, of course, other, serious problems relating to a currency pool that stays constant regardless of population, unemployment, GDP, trade imbalances, etc.
I suppose so, yes. I’d venture they’re not as bad as what we’ve experienced over the last 100 or so years.
So to what do you propose switching when the US dollar loses its faith?
I have no idea what you're babbling about - I had nothing to do with any post being deleted. I'll refer you to my earlier post, where I pointed out that a good liberal fights for the rights of others, including those he may disagree with, and that includes fighting resolutely for the right of conservatives to express their views even if we wholly disagree with them.
Of course, I happen to believe that the more conservatives talk the more they expose just how poor their arguments are, so I would not be in favor of any erasures just for that reason alone. But all kidding aside, I take my principles seriously.
However, I can see that we are going in circles here. This is not a useful medium for establishing basic facts from first principles. When somebody is as deeply invested in a worldview as to resort to the quality of work represented by Family Council, a discussion would need to go back to most basic things, including establishing what is good methodology in social studies of sexuality and what is not. Clearly not practical on a forum.
When you make up your own definitions of what is political conservatism and liberalism, it's hard to have a discussion in a knowledge vacuum. A message board cannot substitute for the relevant education, no matter how patient the posters. I'm sure you'll feel the same way back. Which means issues cannot be resolved this way.
Atheism is a belief system and a religion
Perhaps, as an atheist, I can help you better understand why your beliefs about atheism being a "religion" or "belief system" are wrong.
The definition of atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of one or more deities (AKA gods). A lack of belief is not a "belief system." Not believing in Santa Claus is not a belief system and, thus, neither is not believing in a deity.
Nor is atheism a religion. Unlike a religion, atheism has no uniform beliefs, scripture, teachings, practices, rules, doctrines or dogma. There are no sacred or profane objects. There are no ritual acts or a moral code believed to be sanctioned by deities or "holy" figures. Atheism includes nothing even remotely similar to prayer or other forms of communication with supernatural beings. It does not purport to be a means of understanding our existence or explaining the mysteries of the universe.
Despite the propensity of some religious activists to redefine words to suit their agenda, atheism has neither neither "congregations" nor clergy. Arguing otherwise is like saying that a business meeting in an conference room is a "congregation" in a "church" and that the guy running the Powerpoint presentation is their "preacher."
Prove that the Big Bang occurred... Good luck! See my signature below. A secular noble[LOL!] prize winner understands the issue, and you think you know better than him?
I cannot, and need not, prove that it occurred. Scientists don't claim that it is scientific fact. It's a scientific theory. They believe it because it provides an explanation for the origins of the universe which fit in with our understanding of cosmology and evidence gathered through our observations (expansion rate of the universe, background radiation, even distribution of elements throughout the universe, etc.). All of that is consistent with the theory.