3RU7AL

Spinoza's God

“That eternal and infinite being we call God"

"Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one Substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. Substance causes an infinite number of attributes (the intellect perceiving an abstract concept or essence) and modes (things following from attributes and modes). He calls this Substance "God""

Sounds like God to me lol...

...they shouldn't be allowed to commit smash and dash...

Fix the environment.

You're presenting "Fix-US" as a zero-sum game, yet you haven't provided any information, much less a schema, as to how that is. Your proposal while noble lacks grit. Why not take it to its extreme: eliminate taxation, and allow all laborers to keep 100% of their income? And if there's to be a public option, it can be financed by volunteers. Does this not suffice?

It's the kids who are actually being punished for not having a father in the home. Then they take it out on society for not doing anything about it.

- If you can't prove Proposition #1 is true, then it leaves open the possibility that Proposition #2 is true.  It doesn't mean Proposition#2 IS true, but rather COULD BE true - Likewise, if you can't prove Proposition #2 is true, then it leave open the possibility that Proposition #1 is true.  It doesn't mean Proposition #1 IS true, but rather could be true

A banana is either yellow, or not yellow-- it can't be both. 

A lightswitch is either on  or it's off, it can't be both. 

A person is either male, or not male-- it can't be both.

Okay so what happens when someone commits a heinous crime? Don't they then lose that so-called "unalienable" right to "Liberty" and have to go to prison?

What if you have the right to "Life" but you break into somebody's home and threaten them.

Aren't they legally allowed to kill you in self-defense, making you lose your right to life because you were irresponsible and tried to put another life at risk?

Does "-all humans-" include those who are irresponsible and those who abuse their rights?

Ahhhh, but aren't basing this statement/claim (in bold above) on an assumption "That the only way a human can walk on water is if their density is less than that of water?"  What if there is some other reason that would enable a human to walk on water?  

Or are you saying this is the ONLY reason a human would be able to walk on water?

So I guess there aren't any unalienable rights then? Or there are unalienable rights, but only to specific people?

What good is having a second amendment right to bear arms...

I'm asking you to fix that by rewarding parents for staying together instead of rewarding parents for simply having kids.

Please speak up if you disagree.

I disagree. Break down of social trust and the dissolution of the family unit is not a fundamental contributor to crime. You must be aware of that for which can control; hence, these factors are often cited as factors which correlate to criminal activity, not cause it. 

The average American school gets about $20,000.00 per year per-child.

If everyone had the option to get a supplemental income of $60,000.00 per year to home-school their 3 children, don't you think they'd jump at the chance?

You're ignoring one fact: this voucher of which you speak will not act as an inter-temporal grant for future investment and production; it's just another subsidy for the poor. 

And the poor have low marketable skills and little capital. (There are reasons, for example, most lottery winners burn right through their cash winnings quickly if you're interested in the read.)

You speak of the lack of oversight for private charter schools yet how do you intend to oversee the use of these vouchers and how they're spent if they are to act as a direct cash transfer?

How do you plan to instruct the recipients on spending the money wisely? Wouldn't that cost more money? And if you set a performance standard for those who decide to homeschool their children, don't you risk marginalizing those whom these vouchers intend to help?

Your "solution" is essentially to throw many at it under the presumption that these recipients are "victims of their circumstances" rather than subjects of their choices.

It wouldn't affect inflation because it's not NEW money, it's just the same money that's already being spent, it would just be going to different people (trickle-up economics).

The only money which has been spent is money that has been spent. You're speaking of money the government intends to spend. And since the government doesn't have this money, it has to print fiat (i.o.u.'s.) And printing money with no (precious metal/resource standard) creates inflation.

(1) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer criminals?

It's hard to tell. The recipients can use their vouchers to invest or save, or spend on their vices. You've haven't really present any schema that oversees their spending activities.

Can you please explain to me why single parents should be excluded?

70% of kids growing up without a father IN THE HOME is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

What you are now furthering clarifying is that logic constitutes as proof in your book, correct?

Also, when it comes to "rights," it's important to remember that certain rights can be LOST.

Of course, I agree, 70% of kids growing up without a father is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

Then you posited:

The question is, will the children themselves, the parents, and society as a whole be BETTER SERVED, if the parents had the option to get that same money directly? ($20,000 per child)

This is almost the same conversation I had with Imabench in another thread before he dropped the discussion. People have impulses and vices, there's no getting around it.

If a person knows they can get 20,000 per child per year from the government to do as they will,

...it will increase the number of broken homes, not decrease them as parents will have a financial incentive to have kids, but no incentive to actually take care of them beyond the bare minimum CPS standards.

It's the same deal with the broken Flores law at the border. If an illegal immigrant knows he can be released into the country after 20 days by bringing a child with him/her...it will increase the number of kids coming illegally, not decrease the number of kids, many of them who end up raped or dead. Our broken laws give illegals incentives to illegally bring kids to the border to cash in on free access to the USA.

The dissolution of the core family unit and the associated break-down of social trust is a fundamental contributor to crime.

...so if this is an issue you want to see addressed, keeping the family together should be your number one goal and all incentives should be toward that goal for the welfare of the child and the welfare of society on the whole.

Perhaps if you put in a requirement that this money can only be given to 2 parent families (doesn't have to be heterosexual families), then MAYBE I can get on board.

If I could prove to you beyond a doubt that this idea is socialistic but I could not prove that it was a good or bad idea then would you say that it must be a bad idea because of that despite all the reasons you have given for thinking it is a good idea?

How do any of these proposals help the current problem of 70% of minority children growing up without a father in the home?

For you first message, no we don't have any prerequisites for having kids. We absolutely should. If you are a single, financially unstable, or are a drug user, you should not have kids. 

I have issues with our current welfare system in which people on welfare can, in most states, continue having kids and taking more from the taxpayer. That is disgusting.

All that will likely happen is drug addicts have kids so they can buy more drugs, then will send their kid to the cheapest school so they can pocket the money.

Having kids should not be a way to make money from the government.

How about we go with the cheaper option: vouchers.

Most private schools are cheaper per student that public schools. Giving kids a better, cheaper education is a better idea than giving parents a monetary incentive to have more children.

Okay I think the idea in the OP isn't a good idea...

You are assuming no one else will choose to send their kid to the public school.

There will still be kids that go there because the local private schools couldn't accommodate them until more schools are built.

They would just risk losing funding, so they would actually have to improve the quality of their school rather than expect government checks for being the only option for the poor.

Well, the ADA added more competition for the handicap market, problem solved :P

Do you have a way that can make things easier for me? 

I'm in the wrong?

**(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.

(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.

Humorous Hume can't save you.**

Like I said, I"m right there with you-- I draw the same conclusions as you about humans walking on water-- no need to explain the science behind it to me :-)   

But I stand by my statements, you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water, all you are doing is taking your observations and data and making a conclusion (which I happen to agree with) about humans walking on water.  

Yep, I 100% agree-- if you have no evidence , one can't make the claim/assertion that it exists.  If you have no evidence of X, you can't make the claim that X has existence.  I totally agree-- I don't think anyone is making that claim, I know I certainly am not,

Likewise, though, you can't make the claim that it doesn't exist or can't exist. 

Sure, you can say it's silly, preposterous, or pure fantasy for X to exist, but you can't base that assertion on "no evidence", you use something else (remember my "H"?) to make that judgement.  

Here's the problem though.  There would be too much disruption of people constantly changing or wanting to be in control etc. 

The personal responsibility and accountability for a suggestion like you posted wouldn't work for many people for those reasons imo. 

I mean it should work but I don't have faith in the general public because people are what they are.

Didn't take you long to resort to insults and name calling, typical of you. 

yeah more debt!

And vouchers are the best option right now. They can use the voucher to choose the school their child goes to. If they are concerned about their child going to a school that doesn't accommodate their disabilities, they can still send them to the public school. 

Vouchers aren't a perfect free market system, but they are closer than just funding public schools. This way, there is more competition on the part of the public school to retain their funding.

So in other words...... you want people having as many children as possible so that they can make money? How about (and this just might be a CrAzY iDeA) but... you don't have kids if you cannot afford to have kids?!?

So ultimately the aim is for the workers — not the state — to take over the management of all the industries, including public services."

No. No moral interpretation simply state what they are.

If an event happens in the past, and you have no evidence, you can't make a claim either way (it's true/false, it happened/didn't happen)......

Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of absence

Doesn't have to be a control over production to be a socialist policy. Please do read my first common directed at you. 

What are taxes?

...at LEAST, admitting that evidence exists.

Where is the money coming from?

Tell me definition of socialism as well. 

Guess it must come with the ideology which is conservatism. 

Please tell me step by step how will these be funded and distributed.

Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not.

Sure, if by "opinion" you mean "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."   Let me give you an example, the statement "X did not walk on water" might not be "provable/verifiable", so the assertion "X did not walk on water" is essentially an opinion in that sense. 

However, one can indeed use experience, logic judgement, etc to lead one to a conclusion about that claim.....

But I think what you are really wanting to get to is this:  

           (a) I believe Orion did not walk on water

           (b) but I do believe Jesus walked on water.  

Your statement A is simply that.  A statement.  One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement.  You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.

Whether I accept something as FACT, and whether or not that something is a FACT are two entirely different questions.  But again, go back to my thought process. If there is no evidence, or it can't be verified then I can't claim either way it's a FACT or it's not a FACT.