3RU7AL

SOME AXIOMS ARE NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY.

Once you add “IF” to the equation even the impossible is possible making anything logically necessary under that “IF” circumstance.

I mean... the entire "expired label" on food can be kind of arbitrary, sure in some instances its actually useful, but its mostly used for profit.

Theirs no certainty in regards to what ifs so proof isn’t necessary.

Great! According to this article the United states wastes 80 billion pounds of food per year! Between that and the millions of acres of wilderness that you have pointed put we have land on which to house the entire homeless population and also enough excess food! And you were worried it would cost you something to feed and house everyone!

One group of economists estimates that 42% of the jobs lost are gone forever.

What jobs do you think humans will be performing when self-driving-cars are commonplace?

Car mechanic.

Troubleshooting the failures. One of a million jobs.

dio I could hold in my hand about the size of a stack of smartphones. I had a slide rule to calculate mathematics. The hand-held calculator was introduced in my middle school years, and it was limited to simple math [add/subtract, mutllipy, divide] and was barely pocket-size. It was forbidden to use in class. I was born two years following the creation of t

What jobs do you think humans will be performing when self-driving-cars are commonplace?

Car mechanic.

Because such jobs are only profitable when a small enough portion of the population has them. If everyone has such a job then it is not possible for everyone to be profitable at it.

God exists independently, which means that his existence is not based on a previous iteration of himself. He is constant.

No and that’s neither valid or sound.

Are you trying to suggest that the entire homeless population, given the skill and determination, could live off the land ... in all the PRISTINE WILDERNESS left in America? I may have some bad news for you concerning the numbers of homeless people, the amount of wilderness we have left and the number of people it will support.

As for housing, well I'm actually only talking about shelter.

I read that the first time you posted it, you reposting it doesn’t make it valid/sound.

Well no, because the big bang, the most widely accepted and evidenced model of the beginning of the known universe, time did have a beginning. This is a fairly basic fact.

P1: Every point in time is dependent on the last point in time and the laws of physics

P2: Nothing can be dependent on itself. 

C: The first point in time must be dependent on something external

The only option for the universe to be independent (aka God-like) is for it to be eternal in time. But in fact, it is expanding, and there is a finite amount of energy inside the universe. This means that IF the universe is eternal in time, every instance of energy would be infinitely far apart. Since that is not the case, we know that the universe is not eternal. The only option for it to be eternal is a cyclic universe -- which contradicts modern science and also means that the universe would be dependent on previous iterations of itself.

P1: Every event has a cause

P2: An endless chain of causes is impossible

C: There exists a first cause

UBI is a pitiful urban myth

We have plenty of ancestral heritage of living off and in the land.

Okay so they give me enough per month for 2% of the unit and after 50 months they own enough shares to call the unit theirs. At that point they stop paying any money and once 25 people have done this I no longer have any stake and walk away from the deal with just the $1 mil (800 x 25 x 50) from selling the shares.

Am I understanding right? I want to be sure I understand you correct before I respond.

Keep in mind, I'm actually proposing this for something more like an apartment complex.

That's fair, let's use an apartment complex as an example then. I buy a 25 unit complex for $1,000,000 (no idea how accurate this is to the apartment complex market, just using numbers to demonstrate the point) and divide it into 10,000 shares. 400 shares represents ownership of one housing unit in the complex. Someone comes along and wants to live in one of the units. How much do I charge them and how many shares do I give them each month?

If your plan basically boils down to providing more resources to homeless shelter projects I am all for it.

Do you think if we banned the media covering any police shootings that it would prevent the riots that followed?

I never said Cain was evil, you just asked me the first extremist so I named him

becomes a defacto revocable privilege.

safety net

Simply fractionalize the property.

This would require a loan for most people, so you are okay with mortgages existing?

It's only "true" in the context of the hypothetical.

Ergo “under those circumstances”.

The concept is the same. Let's say an apartment complex worth $2 million has 50 units being rented out. Fractionalized, each of those units are valued at about $40,000. Again not everyone has that kind of cash to spare.

Demand is loosely defined as the number of people willing and able to buy. Let's say there are currently 30 people trying to buy a home in my local area. If the two people I am renting my upstairs bedrooms to move out there will be 32 people in my local area trying to buy a house, thus an increase in demand. Potential sellers have more prospective buyers to take offers from, it is made more competitive for the buyers.Now there may be other separate cases of landlords who own property just for the purpose of renting those properties out and those people may be forced to sell those homes, likely at a loss, rather than upkeep them for no financial gain (option A of my previous post). That may seem to be an increase in supply at first glance (supply being defined as the number of people wanting to sell a property) but this would have no effect on the net supply/demand of the market due to that properties previous tenant being added to the demand pool at the same time.A potentially easier way to think of it... If two friends named Alice and Brandy are currently living together in an apartment because neither can afford the rent alone and not because they actually want to live together (a common situation) then some entity - likely governmental but the details are not relevant - announces that they wish to guarantee everyone has housing then Alice and Brandy will take advantage of that program to get their own places. Now suddenly two living units are required, one for Alice and one for Brandy, where only one unit was required before. Where does that extra unit come from?

I personally would vote against banning any of these five.

Nuclear was necessitates mass destruction - furthermore - it is possible to do many good things through war - it is impossible to do these things through nuclear war. 

Furthermore, either answer my previous questions or I'm done here - I am not doing this song and dance again

IF you define murder like that - which I clarified that I don't neccessarily 

Furthermore - demonstrate the claim: "It is impossible to derive motive" go ahead, do it

Conventional War - the benefit from waging war can possibly outdo the negatives from war

Nuclear War - everyone loses necessarily - there are no benefits

Very easy bud - furthermore, you have not substantiated your claims, do not shift the goal post

Vigilante justice often includes (de facto) murder.  For example, "self-defense" is (de facto) murder UNLESS magical "motive" can be "proved" ("self-defense" is vigilante justice).

"Often includes (de facto) murder" demonstrate that claim - and your "example" is based on a supposition that you can't prove motive, which you can. Furthermore, you completely ignored the second part of my argument - the whole legal definition thing.

AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable

Demonstrate that claim, and this is begging the question of course if "ANY TYPE OF WAR" is justifiable then nuclear war is justifiable, nuclear war is a part of "any type of war", any type of war is what I don't accept - this is a sad collection of non-sequiturs and false equivalences. 

 Demand for housing would spike

while supply at best remains stable,

thus all else being equal property prices would increase.

1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL

2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder

3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.

4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.

That's what I mean by personal responsibility.