Total posts: 827
-->
@SirAnonymous
The planned economy of the Soviet Union transformed it from a primitive agrarian society to a spacefaring superpower in three decades, DESPITE all the internal problems and world wars, and while everything being executed in a flawed, inefficient manner due to bad leadership and logistical hurdles.
That is called DEVELOPMENT, and it occured without capitalism.
That is called DEVELOPMENT, and it occured without capitalism.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Do you consider "being a more developed nation" an advantage of capitalism? Like, do you actually buy the claim that socialism keeps countries poor and underdeveloped despite technological advances? Or do you simply think that the wealthy capitalist countries didn't have decades of head start industrializing.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Sooo:
- No REAL socialist country existed at the time
- No REAL capitalist country existed at the time
That seem like a bonkers argument to make. Of course countries in the real world are never fully and literally socialist or capitalist. That doesn't detract from the fact that the countries ruled by socialist or communist parties did better in almost every measure compared to countries who didn't. Your point about liberty is totally irrelevant to a discussion about PHYSICAL quality of life. I agree there were a lot of authoritarianism in the 20th century, but the socialist regimes were evidentilly better at serving the people than the non-socialist dictatorships.
Created:
In 1981, the socialist countries of the world enjoyed higher living standards than capitalist countries in 28 out of 30 cases. This is the conclusion of a 1986 study called Economic Development, Political-Economic System,
and the Physical Quality of Life [ncbi]. I was quite surprised to learn this given the fact that socialist countries have quite a bad reputation. Comparing data from the world bank and UNICEF about the world's nations, it turns out that in almost all cases, inhabitants of a capitalist country were worse off. Socialist countries had a healthier population with higher expected lifetime, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality and a higher daily calorie count (with healthier food). That is on top of the very obvious lack of unembloyment and abject poverty a state-run economy provides.
The only way to make capitalist countries come out on top is by making bad comparisons. Highly developed capitalist countries like the US and Britain obviously have the edge over the poorer and less developed regions of the world. That does not, however, show that capitalism is superior to socialism. When you compare socialist and capitalist countries adjusted by level of economic development -- like the study does -- socialist countries take the crown in 28 out of 30 cases.
"The relationships between PQL and political-economic system deserve more serious attention than they have received in the past. Our findings indicate that countries with socialist political-economic systems can make great strides toward meeting basic human needs, even without extensive economic resources. When much of the world's population suffers from disease, early death, malnutrition, and illiteracy, these observations take on a meaning that goes beyond cold statistics." [ibid]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CLAIM (1) : BLINBLORT IS THE ONE AND ONLY FLORKLOPCLAIM (2) : BLINBLORT IS NOT THE ONE AND ONLY FLORKLOP
I can tell you with 100% certainty that one of these is true and the other false. Undefined terms doesn't allow the laws of logic to be broken. X =/= not X, no matter what X is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CLAIM (1) : YHWH IS THE ONE AND ONLY GODCLAIM (2) : AHURA MAZDA IS THE ONE AND ONLY GOD
The second claim is CONTRARY, not contradictory to the first. That is, they can't both be true but either or both can be false. Here is a formal logical contradiction:
CLAIM (1) : YHWH IS THE ONE AND ONLY GOD
CLAIM (2) : YHWH IS NOT THE ONE AND ONLY GOD
The truth of either proves the other false, and vice versa. This is the formal definition of a logical contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
two contradictory statements can be false at the same time
Nope. The logical definition of contradictory statements is that they have opposite truth values.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I am rating about how terrible American leaders can be, how is that an attempt to replace democracy?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Lunatic
I have offered RationalMadman the debate I suggested and that he agreed to on the 18th of March. The topic being nuclear energy vs other types of clean energy.
I am willing to debate that alternatives to nuclear are a better replacement
The last couple of days has just been RationalMadman elaborating on his acceptance and telling me precisely how he wants the debate structured. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that we were stalling the negotiations or that either of us were "conceding" the final debate by way of arbitrary time limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Logic demands that at least half of all possible statements are false, because no two contradictory statements can be true at the same time. For this reason, you have to decide for every statement if you want to believe whats being said or its opposite, also called rejecting a statement. You should also remember that other people won't accept as true what you believe without evidence and most probably most of your ideas are useless for practicall purposes.
Truth in science is usefull and evidence based. Philosophy is useless but also a fine lesson in logical argumentation and thinking.
Spirituality is akin to imaginary friends. Even if true, since they don't do anything measureable or usefull, ignoring them is the most rational option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
@Fruit_Inspector
Soooo:
- Facism is about a single nation and race, the new facism is about the world
- Facism is about a single unelected leader, the new facism is about capitalism.
- Facism is about politics, the new facism is about economics.
Admit it, this new form of facism is so different that any argument against historic facism is harmless against the new version.
An oligarchy of technocrats is not a flaw of capitalism
Rich dudes with too much power is a flaw of any system involving rich dudes. Stakeholder capitalism would take some of that power away and give it to the people being ruled by the rich technocrats. More specifically, we remove their ability to exploit and maltreat people, thus protecting the weak against their enormous influence.
Capitalism has done more for the world ... the solution is not to change capitalism.
Agreed. Allowing free trade, abolishing fixed economic classes and rewarding risk-taking has promoted immense economic growth. While the rich benefit more, the poor do aswell. However, the economic freedom that capitalism rellies on requires the rich people to have far less influence over the lives of their workers. You say that changing capitalism won't achieve anything, but that contradicts your first statement. Changing the economic system untill it became capitalism did achieve a lot, and it did so without fundamentally changing human nature. I have no trouble seeing how today's problems can be helped in a similar manner.
- What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) gives incentive for everyone to only care about profit and not care about the well-being of others?
Capitalism rewards the least altruistic, because those that prioritise profits will always outcompete those that don't. Its ususally not viable or desireable for companies to care about their effects on society at large or their exploitation of workers. The thing is, Capitalism is protects unethical economic practises under the pretext of competetive necesity. Workers suffer under the system becuase good wages are automatically a disadvantage for the company.
- What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) would you change
Here are some ideas:
- Punish unethical business practises that have already proven to significantly harm society, customers or workers (by economic or criminal law)
- Give workers a say in their own lives, that is, the owner of a company cannot be the only ones dictating the policies that control workers's lives.
- I want strong unions to ensure workers's interests get heard
- Better yet, have the workers represented in the leadership of businesses
- Give workers a safer lives with less fear and more freedom
- Make it impossible to fire workers quickly and without adequate justification and warning
- Make searching for new jobs easy and always possible.
- Support workers as long as they are unemployed to ensure FREEDOM TO CAREFULLY CHOOSE A DESIREABLE JOB WITHOUT TIME CONSTRAINT
- Rewarding ethical business practices and good working conditions and wages. In this way, even jerk CEO's would want to run their business cleanly.
Basically, I want the majority of people (the workers) to reclaim controll of their own lives and have their own interests
- What means will stakeholders have to enforce these practices to ensure companies follow through?
That is the magic of capitalism and the free market. You don't need to enforce any policies, only incentivice them. For example, we could cut taxes for companies that give workers higher wages. Not only would we fix capitalisms exploitation of workers, we would also shrink the government and allow people to spend money however they like. Another option is outright taxing companies and spending the money on improving the lives of workers.
- What authority does the company/shareholder have to veto the proposals of stakeholders?
Again, I am not proposing a planned economy or destruction of private ownership over the means of production. Neither the government nor any other "stakeholder" will take over the role as CEO. Rather, the interests of stakeholders will define what courses and decisions are acceptable and possible. If a company wants to reinvent slavery, say, they won't by law be permitted to do so. That kind of law doesn't invalidate capitalism, just restrict it inside reasonable ethics.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes. But democracy and a shoting match are not automatically equivalent. A better system should be possible, or maybe just sensible requirements for leaders.
Created:
You say that societal divisions between people that disagree with each other only exist because of democracy
No. I said that a two party system leads to unreasonable disagreement and meaningless squables.
You choose to fill in that blank with the word 'democracy' without acknowledging that this statement is equally true no matter how you fill in the blank
Aaaaand......? You do realise I am pointing out the obvious, not making some grand controversial claim. Our leaders are sometimes sh*t, democracy doesn't prevent that.
That authoritarianism and tyranny are correlated, and I think that correlation is more complex than "power corrupts"
I agree. You perfectly described the reason why giving a strong leader even more power is not a good idea even if he is "good". Again, I am not against accountability, division of power or term limits. All I am doing is pointing to problems within America's political system and how those in charge are often incompetent and relly on manipulation of gullible voters rather than rational evidence-based policies. All I am asking for is educated, intelligent leaders that have rational disagreements with each other rather than exclaim "fake news" every time facts stand in their ways.
They need not be authoritarian or unelected, just competent. Democracy should be about choosing the best leader, not about avoiding the worst of two.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem is that there's too much corruption in DC for any one man to make a lasting difference
Yeah. In a flawed system a good leader would be the exception not the rule, and giving any individual all the power necesary to fix everything is the same as giving them the power to become a dictator. I believe in a robust generation of leaders, I don't want to put hopes in any individual. The system should be fixed.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes it always baffled me how a two party system could be called democracy, especially when the outcomes are randomized or worse, stabilized. If your government can do whatever shit they want without fear of replacement then you are not living in a democracy, and certainly not a well-functioning one. I would much prefer a strong buearocracy of competent experts run a state than elected officials that are corrupt and incompetent.
Why on earth is solving the numerous important problems seen as a political question rather than a definitive goal with practical obstacles in the way?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
If you are waiting for a leader with the power and vision to fix all these things for you
I just want change to be lead and supervised by individuals who are smart enough and educated enough to understand the problems and how to fix them. There are a lot of experts out there but the wheel is put in the hands of random political squables and ignorant incompetent, often corrupt, leaders. Imagine putting a random celebrity in charge of a nation and seeing the country crumble, and remember that is often what happens. I do not necesarilly think American democracy is all bad, but I would certainly prefer having an unpopular but competent city planner or president, just as I would have a competent doctor or police officer.
The problem is that people don't seem to care about competence. I want a system which promotes people based on competence, not popularity.
If that system always leads to dictatorships or some other shit, then democracy is indeed the best of the worst systems of government as Plato said.
Created:
Important note: I do not support tyranny. I do believe rulers should serve the people not their own interests.
Created:
Democracy doesn't guarantee our leaders have good character. Democracy doesn't ensure quality standards for politicians. Braindead conspiracy theorists with good charisma or connections can easilly gain power in a democracy. We want our leaders to be intelligent, well informed and generally competent at their job as crucial decision makers. Or, more accurately, the majority of people just want a leader that shares their ideology, regardless of how competent they are. Worse, many voters don't even have an ideology, just some emotions clever political campaigns can manipulate. The two party system practically prevents constructive dialoge between different polical views. Furthermore, some politicians are extremely ignorant of economics, law, science and technology. Why is it that a great country like the US, with millions of brilliant people, you somehow get a president who calls the scientific concensus on climate change "fake news"?
How do you even approach politics in the US? Facts and evidence-based opinion certainly doesn't matter, and neither does your character. You don't need to be competent or likeable, intelligent or a teamplayer. What disadvantage holds millions of good leader candidates back? The answer: democracy.
I said it, democracy is the reason why America suffers under bad leadership.
In the US, democracy basically means a shouting contest and a culture war. This is not what the country need. It needs competent politicians and smart policies. They need to fix poverty, a failing educational and healthcare system, rising national debt, police shootings and civillian shootings, crime rates, corporate tax loopholes, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, climate change and frequent natural catastrophes. These problems are not merely jokes or ammunition in a mind war.
These problems are real, tangible, they harm people and need to be fixed. Is an endless shouting match really the way to solve them?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I suggest three changes:
- Separating the needs guaranteed by the human rights from participating in the economy. That is, people are free to refuse shit jobs/deals offered them without worrying about immidiate needs. Society will take care of its members like morality demands.
- Outlaw/disincentivice any immoral economic behavior. So, no slavery, no spying on employees, no avoiding taxes or dooming the planet. Set up a carbon tax, substainability tax and a misery tax. Profit margins will then reflect what companies are actually doing, and being greedy is no longer a reason to be a dick.
- Management. Preventing monopolies, crashes and inequality rises is not impossible. The economy should favour startups and innovators and reward good services as opposed to loopholes and lobbying. The system should be designed well so that intervention are rarely needed.
These are my two cents on a better economy. Not sure if you would call it communism, but society as a whole should benefit from and have real freedom in the economy. Disagreeing means one doesn't think the people matters, so I think the question is just how we tweak the economy going forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When I say magic I am refering to the fact that quantum randomness could either be the type we already know exists or it could be not that. Mystical, not physical, but magical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You first have to UNDERSTAND said system or framework
My personal knowledge has no bearing on the validity of my points, and your claim about ignorance on my part is an ad honimen. I do in fact understand economics and the philosophy and practise of capitalism. Do you expect me to give a lecture on the basics? I assume you are knowledgeable and don't need an introduction.
Delineate the tenets and principles of this moral economy; substantiate them as well.
A single principle can suffice: Money should not be aquired through immoral means. You cannot kill for money, commit robbery or sell poisenous food in your restaurant, not even use slaves in your factory. This principle is already a foundational part of our legal system, so I don't see how you would contest it. We are civil people and not barbarians. When we recognize that all humans are created equally and endowned with inalienable rights, the economy must obey a moral code.
Democracy is not worth defending.
Do you prefer feudalism? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Tribalism? My oppinion is we stick with democracy untill we find a better system.
Withheld? Please delineate the exclusive claim and/or entitlement working people with dire economic needs bear on money spent by advertisers.
Businesses spend money on advertisement. That is money not spent improving the service or the conditions/salary of workers. This serves nobody. A cental pilar of stakeholder capitalism is that businesses and the people working in them are not just means to an end, but an end in themselves. The conditions and sallaries of workers is important in an of themselves. Disagreeing is to dehumanize the majority of people on earth, saying their lives don't matter.
If we qualify value in the context of Economics, then yes it is.
My point excactly. The economy works under the assumption that simply making money is a virtue in and of itself. A road or fire department isn't valueable or productive, but apparently drug empires are, and so is scamming and robbery. How does this view make sense in a wider context? Whats valuable and whats desireable is not the same, often quite the contrary. We recognize this with economic crime, but apparently use a double standard when it comes to business.
Stop buying Tobacco-based products. But people won't, will they? So who's really responsible?
Individuals are responsible for their own actions, and similarly, Corporations are responsible for theirs. Lying to make a fortune of off suffering IS immoral.
Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society.""Once again, no real understanding of Capitalism.""
The thing is, contemporary capitalism is fine-tuned for exploitation. Companies generally cannot afford to care about human workers because that would render them at a disadvantage. The past proves this point. Slavery is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unfair treatment of workers. Even you must agree that capitalism incentivices slavery because not having to pay a sallary and practically owning the workers puts you at a competetive advantage.
Provide an exemplar of Companies prioritizing just the owners an not their workers or customers.
Slavery. Amazons cruel treatment of workers. The entire legal and illegal tobaco and drug industry. Rockerfeller massacre of strikers. You need not look far to see that the human ego that makes communism impossible also causes immense harm in our "free" economy. Abuse and exploitation, to the highest degree circumstances will allow, is the rule, not the exception. To assert that a system which only rewards profitt never leads to tragedy is to not understand economics.
Because of Marx's labor theory of value?
Nope, because of logic. Constant abuse of the masses only benefits the few powerfull enough to evade said problems and often profit from the suffering. An economy is good for the country if it benefits the people living in the country. Capitalism is better than feudalism and communism but still can be improved.
You mean carbon emissions which ALLEGEDLY exacerbate "Global Warming"?
Look, I get that you don't trust the narrative, but the effects are not limited to future catastrophy. Harvard research suggests 8 million deaths in 2018 due to pollution by burning of fossil fuel. Pollution is like forcing people, and the globe, to smoke sigarettes -- the resulting death and misery is tangible and well established. The carbon tax would incentive clean non-toxic energy production, all without central planning by the government. This is a moral imperrative.
Except your vision for Capitalism is to achieve Socialist ends, thereby defeating the purpose of Capitalism.
Are you saying disincentivicing unnecesary evil in a capitalistic economy makes it socialist?
You're under the delusion that this economy is Capitalist.
You claim I am ignorant of economics and yet you don't seem to understand what capitalism means. Capitalism means private ownership and economic freedom. That is, the government doesn't own everything and doesn't tell you which products to buy or which company to work for. The united states is by definition capitalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats.
Thats a flaw of capitalism itself. I say we give more economic power and freedom to the people in the world. In the name of democracy and FAIR capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I said it was a global fascist-like system. Nationalism is replaced with globalism.
Instead of a nation being controlled by a racist leader to serve selfish goals at the peril of other nations, you have a free market economy designed to make the world a better place instead of solely considering selfish interests. Your idea of "facism" is the opposite of real, historic facism. This association is not logical.
Is the government a primary stakeholder in this new system?
Are you asking if the economy affects the government? If so, obviously yes. If on the other hand you are asking if I am advocating a central planning economy, NO.
Just a new private-public partnership on a global scale - the Great Reset.
Reset to what, excactly? I believe making a conscious effort to make the world a better place will make it a better place. Are you saying the world SHOULD be a bad place, or that if it is we should do nothing about it? Or are you saying that the world is already perfect and any attempt to change it will make it worse? Let me be more concise. Capitalism is great but not without flaws -- and the biggest one is that everyone is incentivised to give no fucks about the world. This leads to a tragedy of the commons. The obvious solution is to adjust capitalism such that individual interests align with everyone's interests. :ets make capitalism a force for good.
Do you think a tragedy of the commons is the best way for capitalism to work? If not, then you agree with me that capitalism should be tweaked.
What is your suggestion? How do we improve capitalism without "making a deal with the devil" (that is humanity as a whole).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're right. My point is that randomness and chaos is often a result of hidden complexity. QM mustn't be a "magical" type of randomness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe it should be legal to murder people for cash? If not, then you already support "facism" and a "controlled" economy. The only disagreement is how far we are willing to go to protect people. A right to life? A right to basic needs? A right to economic freedom, FREEDOM from exploitation and instability?
I believe freedom is of utmost importance. But your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Extrapolate this principle to economics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
FACISM: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.
CAPITALISM: Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.
What you are arguing for is not Capitalism. Stakeholder Capitalism, particularly in the currently proposed form, is just a new form of fascism.
Excuse me? That's wrong by definition!
Created:
Posted in:
This is commonly referred to as Avogadros number, the amount of atoms in a mole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
A gram off hydrogen gass consists of 6.022E+23 individual hydrogen atoms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Waste May be turned into new fuel by further fission. Every element besides iron has energy potential through fusion or fission, especially the radioactive one. I don't think Putins missuse or the fukushima accident outweigh countless lives saved. Technological innovations like thorium reactors will continue to tip the scales firmly in nuclears' favor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Are you refering to string theory and their 11 spatial dimensions were 7 are wrapped in on themselves in small spaces? Because you're not very clear about it.
Created:
Posted in:
They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results. That is true. Competition allows almost any goals to be reached. So, let us change the goals. Profit only means redistribution of wealth. Even if you justify it as a result of fair market dynamics, its still just that, redistribution. We have created a system where people compete to steer the cash flow towards their own pockets. Any means necesary is NOT acceptable for achieving this goal. Lobbying is waste of money and politician's time, and it also undermines democracy. Money spent on advertisements is money witheld from hard working people with dire economic needs.
The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers. This is madness. A company's value is NOT a function of its profit margins. Road building generates no profit, but they are invaluable services. This highlights the problem with capitalism. We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. The tobacco industry and their decades of lies is a brilliant example of the sort of economic activity that even proponents of capitalism must admit is unacceptable. Its possible to harm society and get rich of it.
That is madness. Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society. We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners. Anything less is to legitimize exploitation in the name of profit. The country is made up of workers --- companies are harming the country if they take money from the employees and give it to the owners. Similarly, broad social harm caused by private industries must be beaten back. Companies must be punished if they harm society in the name of money. That is, put up a carbon prize so that no companies can doom the planet without paying for it.
Capitalism and competition. These are such powerfull forces that it would be utterly foolish not to use them to solve the problems todays world face.
Face it, the economy needs to change. If you believe in small government then all you have is the market, and we can't afford sustaining a financialized poison economy.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The spike protein is the antigen of Sars-Covid-19. Your body ignores the entirety of the virus, it only recognizes the spike protein. Think of the antigen as an ID. Antigens allows doctors to train your immune response without putting you at risk, by only injecting harmless ID cards rather than the virus itself.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well we seem to have found a point of disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So what you do is try to communicate mindbendingly complex hyperdimensional geometry through text and numbers?
Good luck being understood.
Created:
What you are suggesting is regression to older, more dangerous technology that is slower to boot up and test. Traditional vaccines actually made people sick, removing the virus and only insert antigens is a victory.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Does the increasing precision of medical science sound peculiar? Why? Smartphones just appeared and you accept their novelty. mRNA vaccines is just another technology.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
No stranger than wheels detached from cars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
What do you mean when you say "hyper truth"? I know what a truth is, and what a cool mathematical truth is. What is "hyper" I could ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Then run on nukes for 20 years until renewables are preponderant and reliable enough to replace non-renewables
Should we abandon nuclear after 20 years or just supplement with other green sources? There is no cataclysmic danger or economic incentive to remove atomic energy. There is enough fuel for at least centuries of nuclear power, and new innovation will make every step of the process more efficient and safe. An example is thorium reactors and projects to utilize new atoms as fuel, thus recycling radioactive waste instead of burrying it.
According to World Health Organization, nuclear energy is safer per TerraWatt compared to other green energy sources. Doesn't that make it preferable for longer?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's called antigens, special pathogen proteins that the immune cells T and B can recognize through surface receptors.
This is basic immunology.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
As for the science, I have wanted to understand something specific. What exactly tricks the body's cell into thinking it is infected with a virus and why is this in any way better than genuine vaccination against a harmless non-replicating version of Covid?
There is no need to insert a whole virus or large chunks of it for the immune receptors to recognize an antigen. With the latest vaccines only the spike protein is injected to create immunity.
mRNA can't affect DNA in the nucleus, and it decomposes naturally. It orders your cellular machinery to produce the spike protein, which then gets displayed on special surface molecules. Immune cells recognize the antigen and trigger.
This false alarm makes your immune system aware there is a real threath. When the actual virus comes your defences are ready in the form of memory cells and lingering antibodies.
Essentially, mRNA shows your body the virus's ID.
This video explains how the vaccines was made and developed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
This site was my first exposure to logical critique of my fundamentalist religious views.
Here is the first things that pop to my mind:
- I have rejected my certainty of Christianity being true, in fact, I now view every religion as meaningless speculation without evidence
- My view of abortion, animal rights and morality in general have become more nuanced as I understand kantian and utilitarian ethics
- The indoctrination of PragerU has been eradicated from my mind;
- Political and economic issues have been brought to my attention, as well as opposing ideas to the ones I already knew
- At the moment I think of unquestionable certainty as mostly an illusion and of science as the logical and mathematical route to becoming near-certain.
These are a lot of things I have changed my mind about. Now I have been on this site a year and am 17 so it has affected me quite a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barnardot
Definition of GOOD: benefit or advantage to someone or something.
Depends on what something is meant to be good for.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
It's called science, and it matters immensely.
Created:
Christians all over the world have the duty and responsibility to call everyone else to repentance on a daily basis. Of course this needs to be done in love and a sincere heart. Not out of hypocrisy nor spite.
Most Christians all over the world refuse to take up their cross, become missionaries, start new churches, preach at work or in public, visit prisoners, heal the sick in the streets or follow literally any of Jesus's radical calls. Furthermore, there is no correlation between christianity's strenght in a state and the moral and societal prosperity in it. American Christians, despite having God on their side, fail to be better people than anybody else. They have't taken out the log and they have no right to claim moral superiority based solely on heterosexuality. To condemn lgbt people requires the very same Bible that calls unjustified anger a sin worthy of hell.
Unless someone preaches - the sinner won't hear.
What on earth are you taking about? Anti-lgbt rants are not preaching the good News, but purposelesly spreading bigotry that causes the death of countless people and shows the world how evil the church can be.
Nobody benefits from "the truth" being twister in this way.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are they a worse type of sinner? Some might say yes. Others would say no. Yet whether it is worse or not - it is still sinful.
Jesus condemned religious leaders his entire ministry but never spoke a single word against homosexuality. He even spent a lot of time with sinners and didn't ever attack them -- his mere prescence changed them for the better. Today Christians are destroying the lives of lgbt people for no other reason than "sin", yet Jesus never took the condemnation approach - he stated clearly that the one without sin can throw the first stone.
I actually don't know any Christians who I would consider homophobic.
Thats a good thing. To simply assume that someone is a worse human just because they belong to a certain group is nonsensical and harmfull.
I'm not sure there are ANY scientific studies that support the genetic background for homosexuality.
Even if you don't buy that being gay specifically is caused by your genes, the Christian doctrine of heredetary sin serves the same purpose: its impossible to avoid sin. Only a miracle can heal a sinner, meaning God decides when he wants gay people to stop "sinning" --- Christians have no right to try doing God's job.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
May I challenge your view of the issue. Jesus condemned the religious hypocrities all the time, but almost never the "sinners". Those who arrogantly think themselves superior to otherss because they keep the law of God, they were the one Jesus critized the most. The Christians who are not actively witnessing their faith and dedicating their entire lives to Jesus are not acting upon their faith, their faith is indeed dead. James confirms this. Furthermore, if you really believe that you deserve hell and is only saved by grace, it would be nearly impossible to critizise others and not be a hypocrite.
I'm willing to bargain that the average anti-lgbt Christian is a better Christian than a pro-lgbt one
Why? Because theology deems lgbt technically sin? Do you believe that merely going to church or adding jesus on top of your everyday life makes you a better christian?
This is correct but unforgiving and extreme sinners have been downtroded by society since...well forever
IS does not equal SHOULD BE. What justification can you bring to the table for causing depression and suicide?
This is what Christian society is set up to do. To uphold institutions that ensure good communal living for all members while punishing those who harm the community.
That is not what defines Christian society, but just the general idea of society. Christians would actually make diciples of all people, not establish punnitivie systems.
Western civilization literally created the idea of justice.
Bullshit. I don't blame you for believing this, but you have been misled. The oldest law is Babylonian and was created two millenia before Christ.
The values and expectations of Christ are met when homosexuality is discouraged.
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, not a single quote supports your statement. Jesus said that merely being angry at your brother og looking at a woman with lust earns you hell, and that the one without sin can throw the first stone. Jesus literally pardoned a prostitute in front of the religious leaders that wanted to punish her for breaking the law of God. How do Christians still justify relentlessly attacking "sinners" when the apostles clearly demand that Christians be peacefull and overbearing, showing the love of Christ not their own bigotry and hypocrisy.
No, Christians are not ignorant.
So Christians KNOW that they are killing gay people indirectly? Do they KNOW that the bible is always wrong in its cosmology? Do they KNOW that there is a world out there that is destined to hell if they don't act? Do they really KNOW that Jesus says a rich man can only enter heaven with great difficulty? To me it seems the average Christian hardly knows anything even remotely important about science or Jesus's commands --- or if they do they are unwilling to accept or act on it.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Yeah I very much agree. Politics and other issues are free for all to debate and disagree on. But science, well established facts, shouldn't be denied by non-scientists.
Created: