Re: God
Absolutely. IF it was proven, it would be a revolution. that is a big IF however.
And certainly, god did via magic, is an explanation for everything, however an explanation that fits everything isn't very compelling. Ultimately, if god does exist, it is most logical that he created the universe as discovered by science, and this simplified narrative is him dumbing things down for immature children.
Furthermore, if science is wrong, then rather then a benevolent god, you have a trickster god (depending on the degree of unscientific magic used).
If it trully is a full literal reading with the young earth and all, then all those fossils and carbon dating of million year old life forms are lies. The tests and results are real, it must have been planted as false evidence by god... and a benevolent god would not play such deceptions. If anything that sounds like satan's work. So if it was the magical and incomprensible work of an all powerful, then you must reconcile genesis with some scientific findings (like the age of the universe) in order to avoid a trickster god.
Re: Science
I think you misunderstand what i meant by proving something or not disproving something.
I can make a hypothesis about an effect that is not real, but can happen under some circumstances, make an experiment that demonstrates that effect... but then someone else tries to replicate it under different conditions, and it fails.
You proved your hypothesis, your experiment showed the effect. but proving something happens to be a very low bar, as was shown above.
Instead, science requires one to make a hypothesis that cannot be disproven by yourself, and more importantly, your world wide peers. This is a MUCH higher bar, and thus better source for knowledge. Its not about uncertainty, its actually about certainty.
The knowledge being subject to change is of course obvious due to us being human and not perfect, however no scientific thoery established via the scientific method has ever been refuted. By modern standards, most of the observations of ancients are not science. Even today simply collecting records is not science unless its systemic cataloging for the purpose of science.
apples don't aren't a medicinal plant. No medicine are made from apples, and no apples are used as herbs. The plants that are used as medications have many side effects, as the link i referenced shows. It is the same chemical after all.
Also some medications don't come from plants. Antibiotics are grown from a fungus. I don't think eating that fungus is a good idea, it itself could cause an infection. Other medicine are completely sperate from natural sources.
Also, how much will it cost to transport fresh exotic plants across the world? Will people be able to store them properly? how long will they last? You are avoiding these question. Plants are great if they are growing in your backyard, but nobody has a magical climate that can grow all plants.
Just like the republicans did after the civil war, by raising taxes, investing public money into new industries, and giving out free stuff... renewable energy is the obvious cost effective choice in the very near future, especially if it receives proper funding that prioritizes results, not return on investment.
This focus on profit over results is the weakness of a pure free market. They often do correlate, but with things like new industries, they falter. Railroads, factories, nuclear, space, and now renewables all required massive initial investment that no sane private funder would ever sacrifice. especially early in development. The first public company is just starting to launch satellites, and that's thanks to a visionary willing to burn ALOT of money. Imagine our world if we were just now starting to launch satellites!
Yes the government has failures, it also has successes.
Yes the private industry has successes, it also has failures.
Relying soley on either one is folly. They both have different limitations, strengths, and most importantly, priorities.
new dem house promptly passed a bill to limit and reveal dark money, as well as other campaign finance reforms. McConnell wont even allow it on the floor for a vote. I don't see much else on the national level but that goes to show after republicans owned congress for years. We can compare democratic states vs repub states in openness.
As a whole, Democrats have been leading the charge to limit the influence of individuals who trying to receive undo representation. Republicans have actively passed laws helping the wealthy gain more influence. Many of their states have no limits at all! How can you stand by that?
I don't see how you could find his arguments persuasive per this topic.
He speaks of a single president, which is anecdotal, whereas my topic refers to the general policies of an entire wing, as proven over time.
furthermore his anecdotal arguments were largely refuted.
I have flagged the vote for review, perhaps we can debate this subject if I remake it? I don't think that either of my opponents on this topic really challenged my case.
citing virtuoso and bsh due to seeing rational madman do it previously, hope this is the correct way.
the reason i do not find kalam and other original cause arguments persuasive is because their conclusion do not follow. You can't be a rule if there is an exception, and they all make god an exception. thus the answer remains unsatisfactory.
ultimately there cannot be a satisfactory answer is what i determined.
can we agree that an always was, an infinite regression, and an ex nihilo are all unsatisfactory answers? but it turns out those are the only logical options. and this applies regardless if you call that original existence god, the universe, multiverse, reality or anything else.
you say god always existed. someone else says the multiverse always existed. it sounds the same to me.
what does tilt the scale is that if i was forced to imagine something being the default existence, or coming from nothing, I would imagine it would be something simple, like dust or gas. not a fully formed and perfect all powerful sentience. that, imo, DEMANDS an explanation. thus i put my money on natural causes.
a flat earth describes a quality, there is no default, both are positive claims.
but if we were to stretch it, it is possible some time in the distant past someone powerful made a copy of the earth and moved it elsewhere where it found itself in a collision course between 2 large objects that flattened it into a disk. thus there may be a flat earth somewhere in existence. but until i get some evidence...
we do not assume everything exists until proven otherwise.
can you prove to me that unicorns dont exist on some distant planet?
or in a habitable pocket of area beneath the earth we never discovered.
or existed but simply died off.
I believe unicorns are or were real. please, prove me wrong.
we *assume* that some random thing does not exist until proven.
thus claims of nonexistence are the default, and claims of existence are the challenger. this goes for all things, not only god.
A drug made from a plant uses the same chemicals as that plant, therefore will have similar results.
Others are not plant based and do things plants cant.
You didnt counter my benefit outweighs the risk, nor the using, storing, and preserving plants is more difficult then pills. So my Counterarguments remain.
Proving that something doesnt exist is impossible.
For example, (and i dont mean to compare god to these nonexistent things, just the act of proving them.) Please prove that leprechauns dont exist. Or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters. Its impossible. You will have to literally and definitively make a list of all things that exist in existence to prove something does not exist.
Thats why burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim. On the person claiming existence. Noone can prove the impossible.
Saying something doesnt exist isn't a positive claim, unless all things exist by default.
Yes, batteries. Thank you.
Still, it is in battery construction, not routine operation. My point remains unchanged. Once you make it, it passively creates energy with minimal input.
You may have a point about the extra boost, but wouldn't it make sense to have an underlying powergrid of renewables with a few nuclear plants we can turn on when we need a boost. This will result in minimal waste and plenty of energy.
I know you mentioned the rare earth metals in solar panels, and your gonna call me out on saying renewables dont need extraction of materials...
Thats for construction of solar panels. Youll have to compare that to the building of an entire coal plant. Im talking about finding the materials for the actual energy reaction. You dont need coal to build the factory, you need it to pump it in every minute until the factory shuts down. You need it for the actual production of energy. A constant material need.
You build a solar panel, and you forget about it. (routine maintenance again goes for both). No need to pump anything. The only time youll need material is if you want to expand. But you can also spend time looking for alternatives or improvements as you dont really need to do any mining or pumping. Amazing!
Did you mean pure liberitarian capitalism vs socialism? And do you have a specific definition of socialism, as they are so varied? If this is a good fit i might take this debate if you choose to restart it. I promise to post more then your current opponent. Lol
To be honest, its land give aways (and military victories) have successfully achieved a steady peace with most of its neighbors. Their major fight now is with Palestinians, and they never gave land away to them. Arabs arent a monolith.
Furthermore, everyone seems in agreement that they deserve a land, but as with all good will: "not in my backyard".
"Only a number that ends and reaches its endpoint can be deemed an actual number that exists."
This is a made up requirement for numbers.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/number-types.html
Repeating decimals are not only "real numbers", they are ine of the broadest categories. Rational numbers. You made up an arbitrary definition and then got mad...
If i promise to pay you a million dollars, just wait an infinite amount of days before you get it... will the time ever come for you to get paid?
No you will never get paid. This promise may as well not exist.
Similarly your 1 at the end of infinite 0s may as well not exist. Thus the difference is 0.00..., or 0. And if there is no difference, they are the same.
Thank you for providing me with a suprising extra proof.
That sounds like you just read the lines.
It didnt mention that we have to handle this waste for millions of years before it is decontaminated. Meaning our great great great great x1000 grandchildren will still be handling our very first waste while looking for more sites to store more waste. This is a very bad long term solution. Only a selfish short sighted people would go for this.
It created little waste because it isnt a majority source. If it becomes the primary source it will be much more waste. + our energy needs grow exponentially... thats alot more waste. And good luck finding people happy to live near a nuclear waste storage facility. Lol
Its a good bandaid for limited use, but we need real solutions. There will never be a time without sun, wind, waves, or magma. Once its set up its just passive energy flowing through our society, and instead of extracting more raw materials, we can focus on improving efficiency and scale.
Note the word egalitarian in your definition. What part of a people living in fear while a ruling class lives like kings sounds egalitarian. You labeled it ECONOMICALLY left wing knowing full well that isnt the full definition. I don't see how a dictatorship is egalitarian.
do you realize you are quoting an industry lobby group?
aren't you concerned not only about their bias, but also their conflict of interest?
were you not curious about the cuddly language use in describing the radioactive cells?
Can you provide a link to the info?
Im pretty sure the radioactivity is still a big question.
A full switch to nuclear will be exoponetially more waste, as will our future energy need growth.
investing in people based on individual actions is great
investing based on group actions and being judged before birth is not
the starting line has to be equal, at least in public services as per the constitution. not the finish line.
why isn't the starting line (as per public services) equal?
im just quoting the rundown of their platform. raising wages had a specific mention. the whole platform seems rather big government. i haven't seen the democratic platform, but i made my case with the republican platform. Large debt, large investment, free market interference by pushing an industry in the name of advancement. this is hands down my win
name some countries that are 1st world and have slaves. your response notably said many countries in general. did you miss by mention of 1st world or was this a conscious choice?
they could not compete, but they both were 3rd world nations within that same generation. that is amazing growth. had they not tried to compete and focused on steady growth... we could have been #3 a long time ago. Their flaws was the fact that from their very inception they were intended to be dictatorships. they were not some socialist failing, they were a socialist lie. whether socialism would work or not, these were not socialist, except in name. Stalin and Mao made themselves kings from day 1. and kings are easy to tease. their families wont starve.
I'm actually going to be abandoning these little chats. they are taking away from life. If you want, start a debate. I plan to start a few on the topic of liberitarianism, including why you should vote left. I think we agree on many social issues. not word choices, but letting weirdos be weirdos, as long as they don't harm anyone. as far as the economy. I know you have a right wing ideal, but the republican party isn't going liberitarian yet, especially not with the trump turn. aren't regulations, applied to all companies in an industry, not better then subsidies for specific companies? one may decrease efficiency, although it will increase consumer confidence, but the other hand picks winners and losers destroying the concept of fair competition and any legitimacy to the market. say no to hand picking winners and losers.
Trump is half way done with his term, i haven't heard anything on infrastructure in a year and a half. And when i did it was some public private sponsorship, nothing line the rail roads or the highway, or the Hoover dam.
Your still leaving out 85% including *higher wages*!
Ok. Scratch religious
We still have rural, conservative, small government on the Democrats. And mostly in the south... sound familiar?
America as a whole was the last 1st world bastion of slavery, and the Confederate states fought hard to keep it. By your standards, it is disgusting.
If you want to be specific, you can say it was a party, but wasnt it really all about the states? 😎
I dont support their laws, but a command econony took USSR from 3rd world to super power in a few decades. A HEAVILY controlled market made china the fastest growing economy and currently our only rival. it really depends on how much control the people have, and how much corruption takes control away from them. We became great under FDR. we have faded since embracing liberitarian like policies since the 70s/80s. Still #1, but competitors catching up.
Certainly your solution would be excellent for climate change. Algea don't take decades to grow, but stopping fossil fuels will do the trick. Pollution is not the issue, but nuclear power contributes near nothing to climate change. Can you address the issue of nuclear waste?
Im no engenieer, i would have to do research. However my point is regarding its existence, and possibly consequences. Before we can discuss solutions, we have to first agree there is a problem. Do you agree that modern climate change is a disaster we can and should tru to avert urgently? Do you agree that it at least is real and unnatural?
All things use fossil fuels until we make a big switch to renewables. I dont think thats a valid argument. Im not too sure about Germany's results, but technology has advanced and there are many ways to implement many different renewables.
Whats the environmental damage from digging for rare earth metals? We have to dig for coal and oil too anyway, seems like a default cost that has nothing to do with subsequent costs.
Nuclear power is clean on production, and newer gen are safe. But as far as i know we still don't know what to do about those spent rods. It also has high initial cost so not good as a temporary solution until renewables.
Eventually the market will embrace renewables, but historically governments have helped push vital new industries from railroads to medicines. This is in the public interest so they're should be no problem using public funds to invest when its to expense for for profit private
Always good to plant more trees, but trees take decades to grow. Algea and cyanobacteria are better options to farm. Either way, both carbon control and emissions reductions are both necessary to bring this situation under control. Renewables will eventually be necessary as our energy use keeps growing beyond the limited fossil fuel reserves.
Just because you dont understand the math, doesn't mean the math is wrong. Your jibberish algebra and false beliefs about base 2 prove your lack of understanding. You need to brush up on your grade school math. Also, try to watch some videos about infinities.
You can totally divide 1 by 11 (which is the binary version of 3). You can do anything in binary that you can do in any other number system. You dont know math. You may as well be arguing that "dog" is the French word for hello.
No, you wont get it in reverse to.my knowledge, however going from 0.999.... to 1 was a simple as multiplying both sides by the same value. The most fundamental and unquestionable math principle. Not a cheap trick like your jibberish.
Seeing as you dont know.math basics, you may as well be arguing about how to talk chinese without knowing chinese. Have a good day.
1/3 in binary is 0.010101...
It exists, and binary is not some pure form. Its just another number base as pure as any other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number
Your math is jibberish. If someone says 1+1=3 thats not a math trick, thats someone saying nonsense. Your equations do not follow from each other. They may as well be isolated statements that have nothing to do with the previous or next one.
Your x/y vs y/x is you assuming your conclusion. It is not prove x=/=y.
We started with a single variable, x=0.999... and simply multiplied or divided both sides with the same value. This does not change any equation ever, and the conclusion was that x also = 1. No tricks, just basic algebra. Your math is tricks, your math is wrong.
They also gave out free farms, paid for a massive infrastructure project, free land for public education, higher taxes, promoted a new industry, and the best kicker: *higher wages*.
At best you found something everyone agrees on to focus on, and willfully ignored 90% of it.
Furthermore the previously noted constituency flips. The Democrat party of then represented conservarive, rural, and religious voices, mostly down south. Sound familiar? Meanwhile the Republicans supported, and implemented, big government, higher wages, "socialism" decades before actual socialism.
The fact that this history is yet another point against you, in your logic. Who gives a ****? I support the policies being spoken today. The name they use is irrelevant. You ignored my analogy with America being such a massive slave nation 100 years ago. Are you saying that continues to make america disgusting today? No offense, even newton searched for alchemic secrets in the bible, but this claim is a really really dumb one. Both logically, and morally.
The private sector has screwed up markets a plenty. Meanwhile governments have done alot of good as well. It all depends on the people and how they execute it.
I believe the lack of cons on this debate demonstrates the false portrayal of the left by the right wing media.
Out of the 100 million on each side, there are idiots on both. Portraying those idiots as the common denominator of a third of a population is idiotic, and a common propaganda tactic.
Re purpose
Im glad we agree that the bible had a very clear purpose, guidance on how to live. And it was not contested that the bible has no mention of very vital scientific information on disease and medicine, as well as other fields like physics. I would understand the reasoning behind, that is up to us to discover with our hands, not questioning god, but i am building up to the terribly untechnical 7 days of creation. Along with some chronological contradictions, can we at best say that god didnt give them the full story, as that was not why he came.
He told them he did it, he told them it was good, then he got them to shut up and listen. Why would he get into details of atoms and energy with people who couldn't even get along properly? He is many things, he is not a public library. His focus was on law and morality. The science is non existent. The history was probably not spoken by god, why would he dictate that? And as my purpose, it is that the bible should not be used as a source to contradict the findings of science.
You are wrong that science cannot prove stuff. What you are referrencing are 2 notions. 1) science does not seek proof, because if you seek to prove something, you will. Coincidence can be seen anywhere, and poor experiment design can confirm anything. Instead, you make a hypothesis, and do your darndest to *disprove* it, with repeated failure by yourself and your peers being a success. And 2) some wiggle room to acknowledge our ignorance and refusing to declare closed case incase of new evidence.
Science has proven the existence of atoms, cells, particles, many many many new forms of life. As well as the mechanisms behind a significant portion of creation.
We do not know it had a beginning. The big bang is the beginning of everything we know of, but any legitamete source will tell you we have zero clue what was before, during, and for a few fractions of a second just after the big bang. The idea that it is a definitive nothing is a layman misconception. Also... its a 50/50. Personally i have my money on ever existence, just like you. Because before the universe there was god, and he simply always was. No? Me, i believe the universe always came and went, in an infinite regression. I know, infinite regression is not a satisfying answer, but neither is eternal existence, nor ex nihilo.
Re: God
Absolutely. IF it was proven, it would be a revolution. that is a big IF however.
And certainly, god did via magic, is an explanation for everything, however an explanation that fits everything isn't very compelling. Ultimately, if god does exist, it is most logical that he created the universe as discovered by science, and this simplified narrative is him dumbing things down for immature children.
Furthermore, if science is wrong, then rather then a benevolent god, you have a trickster god (depending on the degree of unscientific magic used).
If it trully is a full literal reading with the young earth and all, then all those fossils and carbon dating of million year old life forms are lies. The tests and results are real, it must have been planted as false evidence by god... and a benevolent god would not play such deceptions. If anything that sounds like satan's work. So if it was the magical and incomprensible work of an all powerful, then you must reconcile genesis with some scientific findings (like the age of the universe) in order to avoid a trickster god.
Re: Science
I think you misunderstand what i meant by proving something or not disproving something.
I can make a hypothesis about an effect that is not real, but can happen under some circumstances, make an experiment that demonstrates that effect... but then someone else tries to replicate it under different conditions, and it fails.
You proved your hypothesis, your experiment showed the effect. but proving something happens to be a very low bar, as was shown above.
Instead, science requires one to make a hypothesis that cannot be disproven by yourself, and more importantly, your world wide peers. This is a MUCH higher bar, and thus better source for knowledge. Its not about uncertainty, its actually about certainty.
The knowledge being subject to change is of course obvious due to us being human and not perfect, however no scientific thoery established via the scientific method has ever been refuted. By modern standards, most of the observations of ancients are not science. Even today simply collecting records is not science unless its systemic cataloging for the purpose of science.
apples don't aren't a medicinal plant. No medicine are made from apples, and no apples are used as herbs. The plants that are used as medications have many side effects, as the link i referenced shows. It is the same chemical after all.
Also some medications don't come from plants. Antibiotics are grown from a fungus. I don't think eating that fungus is a good idea, it itself could cause an infection. Other medicine are completely sperate from natural sources.
Also, how much will it cost to transport fresh exotic plants across the world? Will people be able to store them properly? how long will they last? You are avoiding these question. Plants are great if they are growing in your backyard, but nobody has a magical climate that can grow all plants.
Just like the republicans did after the civil war, by raising taxes, investing public money into new industries, and giving out free stuff... renewable energy is the obvious cost effective choice in the very near future, especially if it receives proper funding that prioritizes results, not return on investment.
This focus on profit over results is the weakness of a pure free market. They often do correlate, but with things like new industries, they falter. Railroads, factories, nuclear, space, and now renewables all required massive initial investment that no sane private funder would ever sacrifice. especially early in development. The first public company is just starting to launch satellites, and that's thanks to a visionary willing to burn ALOT of money. Imagine our world if we were just now starting to launch satellites!
Yes the government has failures, it also has successes.
Yes the private industry has successes, it also has failures.
Relying soley on either one is folly. They both have different limitations, strengths, and most importantly, priorities.
sorry forgot about this one.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/701455283/house-passes-extensive-election-and-campaign-finance-overhaul-bill
new dem house promptly passed a bill to limit and reveal dark money, as well as other campaign finance reforms. McConnell wont even allow it on the floor for a vote. I don't see much else on the national level but that goes to show after republicans owned congress for years. We can compare democratic states vs repub states in openness.
https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_comparison_of_campaign_finance_requirements
As a whole, Democrats have been leading the charge to limit the influence of individuals who trying to receive undo representation. Republicans have actively passed laws helping the wealthy gain more influence. Many of their states have no limits at all! How can you stand by that?
I don't see how you could find his arguments persuasive per this topic.
He speaks of a single president, which is anecdotal, whereas my topic refers to the general policies of an entire wing, as proven over time.
furthermore his anecdotal arguments were largely refuted.
I have flagged the vote for review, perhaps we can debate this subject if I remake it? I don't think that either of my opponents on this topic really challenged my case.
citing virtuoso and bsh due to seeing rational madman do it previously, hope this is the correct way.
the reason i do not find kalam and other original cause arguments persuasive is because their conclusion do not follow. You can't be a rule if there is an exception, and they all make god an exception. thus the answer remains unsatisfactory.
ultimately there cannot be a satisfactory answer is what i determined.
can we agree that an always was, an infinite regression, and an ex nihilo are all unsatisfactory answers? but it turns out those are the only logical options. and this applies regardless if you call that original existence god, the universe, multiverse, reality or anything else.
you say god always existed. someone else says the multiverse always existed. it sounds the same to me.
what does tilt the scale is that if i was forced to imagine something being the default existence, or coming from nothing, I would imagine it would be something simple, like dust or gas. not a fully formed and perfect all powerful sentience. that, imo, DEMANDS an explanation. thus i put my money on natural causes.
I should be less active :(
a flat earth describes a quality, there is no default, both are positive claims.
but if we were to stretch it, it is possible some time in the distant past someone powerful made a copy of the earth and moved it elsewhere where it found itself in a collision course between 2 large objects that flattened it into a disk. thus there may be a flat earth somewhere in existence. but until i get some evidence...
we do not assume everything exists until proven otherwise.
can you prove to me that unicorns dont exist on some distant planet?
or in a habitable pocket of area beneath the earth we never discovered.
or existed but simply died off.
I believe unicorns are or were real. please, prove me wrong.
we *assume* that some random thing does not exist until proven.
thus claims of nonexistence are the default, and claims of existence are the challenger. this goes for all things, not only god.
A drug made from a plant uses the same chemicals as that plant, therefore will have similar results.
Others are not plant based and do things plants cant.
You didnt counter my benefit outweighs the risk, nor the using, storing, and preserving plants is more difficult then pills. So my Counterarguments remain.
I linked a source for plant based side effects. Is it missing something?
Where was the pride?
Proving that something doesnt exist is impossible.
For example, (and i dont mean to compare god to these nonexistent things, just the act of proving them.) Please prove that leprechauns dont exist. Or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters. Its impossible. You will have to literally and definitively make a list of all things that exist in existence to prove something does not exist.
Thats why burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim. On the person claiming existence. Noone can prove the impossible.
Saying something doesnt exist isn't a positive claim, unless all things exist by default.
Yes, batteries. Thank you.
Still, it is in battery construction, not routine operation. My point remains unchanged. Once you make it, it passively creates energy with minimal input.
You may have a point about the extra boost, but wouldn't it make sense to have an underlying powergrid of renewables with a few nuclear plants we can turn on when we need a boost. This will result in minimal waste and plenty of energy.
Is there a difference in taste between living boil and getting stabbed through the head just before being dropped? Assuming that kills them.
I would ask that if my opponent has no intention of responding, that they many make an empty post to prevent unnecessary procrastination.
I know you mentioned the rare earth metals in solar panels, and your gonna call me out on saying renewables dont need extraction of materials...
Thats for construction of solar panels. Youll have to compare that to the building of an entire coal plant. Im talking about finding the materials for the actual energy reaction. You dont need coal to build the factory, you need it to pump it in every minute until the factory shuts down. You need it for the actual production of energy. A constant material need.
You build a solar panel, and you forget about it. (routine maintenance again goes for both). No need to pump anything. The only time youll need material is if you want to expand. But you can also spend time looking for alternatives or improvements as you dont really need to do any mining or pumping. Amazing!
Ill be scoring 2 points off you soon :)
Expect retorts when jabbing at other people. Particularly those who love their speech.
Im sure many of the 330million Americans can.
Nice win/loss record. Those map skills are really helping!
Half way through voting bump
Did you mean pure liberitarian capitalism vs socialism? And do you have a specific definition of socialism, as they are so varied? If this is a good fit i might take this debate if you choose to restart it. I promise to post more then your current opponent. Lol
To be honest, its land give aways (and military victories) have successfully achieved a steady peace with most of its neighbors. Their major fight now is with Palestinians, and they never gave land away to them. Arabs arent a monolith.
Furthermore, everyone seems in agreement that they deserve a land, but as with all good will: "not in my backyard".
What an exciting debate. I dont think i can handle 1 more round of this action.
"Only a number that ends and reaches its endpoint can be deemed an actual number that exists."
This is a made up requirement for numbers.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/number-types.html
Repeating decimals are not only "real numbers", they are ine of the broadest categories. Rational numbers. You made up an arbitrary definition and then got mad...
Are you making up definitions?
*there is no 9 at the end of the 9s*
Its just an endless series of 9s
Just like the endless series of days til you get your million.
There is no day that you miss your payment. There is nothing at the end of and *END*LESS series.
End-less. No-end. Infinity.
If i promise to pay you a million dollars, just wait an infinite amount of days before you get it... will the time ever come for you to get paid?
No you will never get paid. This promise may as well not exist.
Similarly your 1 at the end of infinite 0s may as well not exist. Thus the difference is 0.00..., or 0. And if there is no difference, they are the same.
Thank you for providing me with a suprising extra proof.
That sounds like you just read the lines.
It didnt mention that we have to handle this waste for millions of years before it is decontaminated. Meaning our great great great great x1000 grandchildren will still be handling our very first waste while looking for more sites to store more waste. This is a very bad long term solution. Only a selfish short sighted people would go for this.
It created little waste because it isnt a majority source. If it becomes the primary source it will be much more waste. + our energy needs grow exponentially... thats alot more waste. And good luck finding people happy to live near a nuclear waste storage facility. Lol
Its a good bandaid for limited use, but we need real solutions. There will never be a time without sun, wind, waves, or magma. Once its set up its just passive energy flowing through our society, and instead of extracting more raw materials, we can focus on improving efficiency and scale.
Note the word egalitarian in your definition. What part of a people living in fear while a ruling class lives like kings sounds egalitarian. You labeled it ECONOMICALLY left wing knowing full well that isnt the full definition. I don't see how a dictatorship is egalitarian.
Its not just about saying the truth, its also about saying the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and cutting out misleading sugar coating.
do you realize you are quoting an industry lobby group?
aren't you concerned not only about their bias, but also their conflict of interest?
were you not curious about the cuddly language use in describing the radioactive cells?
what was the wording of your google search?
Can you provide a link to the info?
Im pretty sure the radioactivity is still a big question.
A full switch to nuclear will be exoponetially more waste, as will our future energy need growth.
investing in people based on individual actions is great
investing based on group actions and being judged before birth is not
the starting line has to be equal, at least in public services as per the constitution. not the finish line.
why isn't the starting line (as per public services) equal?
im just quoting the rundown of their platform. raising wages had a specific mention. the whole platform seems rather big government. i haven't seen the democratic platform, but i made my case with the republican platform. Large debt, large investment, free market interference by pushing an industry in the name of advancement. this is hands down my win
name some countries that are 1st world and have slaves. your response notably said many countries in general. did you miss by mention of 1st world or was this a conscious choice?
they could not compete, but they both were 3rd world nations within that same generation. that is amazing growth. had they not tried to compete and focused on steady growth... we could have been #3 a long time ago. Their flaws was the fact that from their very inception they were intended to be dictatorships. they were not some socialist failing, they were a socialist lie. whether socialism would work or not, these were not socialist, except in name. Stalin and Mao made themselves kings from day 1. and kings are easy to tease. their families wont starve.
I'm actually going to be abandoning these little chats. they are taking away from life. If you want, start a debate. I plan to start a few on the topic of liberitarianism, including why you should vote left. I think we agree on many social issues. not word choices, but letting weirdos be weirdos, as long as they don't harm anyone. as far as the economy. I know you have a right wing ideal, but the republican party isn't going liberitarian yet, especially not with the trump turn. aren't regulations, applied to all companies in an industry, not better then subsidies for specific companies? one may decrease efficiency, although it will increase consumer confidence, but the other hand picks winners and losers destroying the concept of fair competition and any legitimacy to the market. say no to hand picking winners and losers.
see you in debates!
A nation is its people. You have to invest in your people.
Trump is half way done with his term, i haven't heard anything on infrastructure in a year and a half. And when i did it was some public private sponsorship, nothing line the rail roads or the highway, or the Hoover dam.
Your still leaving out 85% including *higher wages*!
Ok. Scratch religious
We still have rural, conservative, small government on the Democrats. And mostly in the south... sound familiar?
America as a whole was the last 1st world bastion of slavery, and the Confederate states fought hard to keep it. By your standards, it is disgusting.
If you want to be specific, you can say it was a party, but wasnt it really all about the states? 😎
I dont support their laws, but a command econony took USSR from 3rd world to super power in a few decades. A HEAVILY controlled market made china the fastest growing economy and currently our only rival. it really depends on how much control the people have, and how much corruption takes control away from them. We became great under FDR. we have faded since embracing liberitarian like policies since the 70s/80s. Still #1, but competitors catching up.
Certainly your solution would be excellent for climate change. Algea don't take decades to grow, but stopping fossil fuels will do the trick. Pollution is not the issue, but nuclear power contributes near nothing to climate change. Can you address the issue of nuclear waste?
Im no engenieer, i would have to do research. However my point is regarding its existence, and possibly consequences. Before we can discuss solutions, we have to first agree there is a problem. Do you agree that modern climate change is a disaster we can and should tru to avert urgently? Do you agree that it at least is real and unnatural?
All things use fossil fuels until we make a big switch to renewables. I dont think thats a valid argument. Im not too sure about Germany's results, but technology has advanced and there are many ways to implement many different renewables.
Whats the environmental damage from digging for rare earth metals? We have to dig for coal and oil too anyway, seems like a default cost that has nothing to do with subsequent costs.
Nuclear power is clean on production, and newer gen are safe. But as far as i know we still don't know what to do about those spent rods. It also has high initial cost so not good as a temporary solution until renewables.
Eventually the market will embrace renewables, but historically governments have helped push vital new industries from railroads to medicines. This is in the public interest so they're should be no problem using public funds to invest when its to expense for for profit private
Always good to plant more trees, but trees take decades to grow. Algea and cyanobacteria are better options to farm. Either way, both carbon control and emissions reductions are both necessary to bring this situation under control. Renewables will eventually be necessary as our energy use keeps growing beyond the limited fossil fuel reserves.
Just because you dont understand the math, doesn't mean the math is wrong. Your jibberish algebra and false beliefs about base 2 prove your lack of understanding. You need to brush up on your grade school math. Also, try to watch some videos about infinities.
>>>0.0101.....
11/1.0000
>>>>>>11
>>>>>>100
>>>>>>>11
Binary long division
https://m.wikihow.com/Divide-Binary-Numbers?amp=1
You cant have something at the end of an infinite series. You dont understand the definition of infinity.
So you went from you cant divide by 3 in binary to you cant divide by 3 at all... i can divide a pie into 3 slices. Evenly.
So you were wrong to assume you cant do.something in base 2 that you can do in base 10, can you admit your knowledge of math is limited?
To be honest, i didnt understand your proof: S∞ = a/1-rÂ
You defined all the variables, but not the formula, specifically, whats up with the "1-". Can you. Break it down?
You can totally divide 1 by 11 (which is the binary version of 3). You can do anything in binary that you can do in any other number system. You dont know math. You may as well be arguing that "dog" is the French word for hello.
No, you wont get it in reverse to.my knowledge, however going from 0.999.... to 1 was a simple as multiplying both sides by the same value. The most fundamental and unquestionable math principle. Not a cheap trick like your jibberish.
Seeing as you dont know.math basics, you may as well be arguing about how to talk chinese without knowing chinese. Have a good day.
1/3 in binary is 0.010101...
It exists, and binary is not some pure form. Its just another number base as pure as any other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number
Your math is jibberish. If someone says 1+1=3 thats not a math trick, thats someone saying nonsense. Your equations do not follow from each other. They may as well be isolated statements that have nothing to do with the previous or next one.
Your x/y vs y/x is you assuming your conclusion. It is not prove x=/=y.
We started with a single variable, x=0.999... and simply multiplied or divided both sides with the same value. This does not change any equation ever, and the conclusion was that x also = 1. No tricks, just basic algebra. Your math is tricks, your math is wrong.
They also gave out free farms, paid for a massive infrastructure project, free land for public education, higher taxes, promoted a new industry, and the best kicker: *higher wages*.
At best you found something everyone agrees on to focus on, and willfully ignored 90% of it.
Furthermore the previously noted constituency flips. The Democrat party of then represented conservarive, rural, and religious voices, mostly down south. Sound familiar? Meanwhile the Republicans supported, and implemented, big government, higher wages, "socialism" decades before actual socialism.
The fact that this history is yet another point against you, in your logic. Who gives a ****? I support the policies being spoken today. The name they use is irrelevant. You ignored my analogy with America being such a massive slave nation 100 years ago. Are you saying that continues to make america disgusting today? No offense, even newton searched for alchemic secrets in the bible, but this claim is a really really dumb one. Both logically, and morally.
The private sector has screwed up markets a plenty. Meanwhile governments have done alot of good as well. It all depends on the people and how they execute it.
I believe the lack of cons on this debate demonstrates the false portrayal of the left by the right wing media.
Out of the 100 million on each side, there are idiots on both. Portraying those idiots as the common denominator of a third of a population is idiotic, and a common propaganda tactic.
Re purpose
Im glad we agree that the bible had a very clear purpose, guidance on how to live. And it was not contested that the bible has no mention of very vital scientific information on disease and medicine, as well as other fields like physics. I would understand the reasoning behind, that is up to us to discover with our hands, not questioning god, but i am building up to the terribly untechnical 7 days of creation. Along with some chronological contradictions, can we at best say that god didnt give them the full story, as that was not why he came.
He told them he did it, he told them it was good, then he got them to shut up and listen. Why would he get into details of atoms and energy with people who couldn't even get along properly? He is many things, he is not a public library. His focus was on law and morality. The science is non existent. The history was probably not spoken by god, why would he dictate that? And as my purpose, it is that the bible should not be used as a source to contradict the findings of science.
Re: science
You are wrong that science cannot prove stuff. What you are referrencing are 2 notions. 1) science does not seek proof, because if you seek to prove something, you will. Coincidence can be seen anywhere, and poor experiment design can confirm anything. Instead, you make a hypothesis, and do your darndest to *disprove* it, with repeated failure by yourself and your peers being a success. And 2) some wiggle room to acknowledge our ignorance and refusing to declare closed case incase of new evidence.
Science has proven the existence of atoms, cells, particles, many many many new forms of life. As well as the mechanisms behind a significant portion of creation.
We do not know it had a beginning. The big bang is the beginning of everything we know of, but any legitamete source will tell you we have zero clue what was before, during, and for a few fractions of a second just after the big bang. The idea that it is a definitive nothing is a layman misconception. Also... its a 50/50. Personally i have my money on ever existence, just like you. Because before the universe there was god, and he simply always was. No? Me, i believe the universe always came and went, in an infinite regression. I know, infinite regression is not a satisfying answer, but neither is eternal existence, nor ex nihilo.
I hope billa comes back, i thought of an epic final argument to seal the case 110%