Sidewalker

Actually, the USA will be his biggest bankruptcy.

He took a picture with him at a charity event. This is like one of those things democrats do. You get Clinton actually on the flight logs to the island you get lots of celebrities .

It's like calling Eminem a child molester because he took some photos with puff daddy. It's really stupid. Which is why outside of politics and a similar situation like Eminem in photos with P. DIDDY, LITERALLy has zero people on the planet calling Eminem a child molester. 

The smartest people I know are Chinese.

As somebody with a son. I will tell you, this is rape. If a grown woman touched my son, I would do the same thing I would do to a grown man.

It's fucking sick. That woman is a predator. I have been 16 and have had older women attempt to seduce me. I may be disturbed by that with my son, but I wouldn't necessarily think the law needs to get involved but a 12 year old is a child and this woman is every bit as sick and twisted as any male predator

Shakespeare didnt mention the age of Romeo

16 isn't much older than 14.

The actual age of Romeo is never mentioned in the work. The age of Juliet is described as "she just turned 14".

But judging by Romeo's actions, I realized he is probably much older than 14.

not a lot of families then or now would approve of a couple of teenagers getting married after less than 24 hours.

The biggest issue was that families didnt get along, so they didnt want to ever approve of such relationship. I dont really hold a view that family should meddle in who marries who. Otherwise, might as well go back to arranged marriages.

Besides, at the time the work was written, 14 was considered adult.

Most people have heard of William Shakespeare's work "Romeo and Juliet".

However, most people dont know that Juliet was 14 while Romeo was considered much older.

They end up killing themselves because their families dont approve of their love.

You say why label, well we have labels called heterosexual and homosexual don't we?

They exist because we judge what something is and not.

Now if you're scared to call a cis male gay for doing whatever sexually with a trans female, that cis male wants to know,

it's disingenuous to avoid answering the question.

You know that B.K is playing you, don't you?

Are you gay being a cis male engaging in a sexual relationship  with a trans female?

Why or why not?

Guys, its okay. I accept your concessions.

That is not the definition of faith, no matter how many times you proclaim it.

If you are not going to agree on a definition, then there is no debate. Either give a definition you want to debate on, or this wont go anywhere.

Is the rejection of science a precept of your religion?

It was a comment on quantum physics. Even Einstein said that its not perfect because it doesnt have direct observation. When there is no direct observation, then there is only inductive reasoning or by results. Inductive is not perfect because its basically built on assumption that things we cannot observe are acting in same way as things we can observe. If you go by results of things you cant observe, it is like observing the effect while not seeing the cause. So while we know that cause exists and reacts to input, it is still not an observation of a cause. So without direct observation, it is very silly to assume that we can know exactly how it works. We dont even know everything about things we can directly observe. Brain can be observed given enough time, but brain has so many connections that mere amount makes it impossible to observe it effectively, let alone make complete theory from such an observation. With the things you cant observe directly or which rely on flawed observation instruments, it is even harder. Science isnt some magic which gives instantly correct answers. Most scientists spend decades working on theories, and face many failures. It is years of effort which eventually reveal a working theory out of bunch theories out there. Even theory of evolution today isnt same as it was when it was first produced.

I will look into that. Thanks

You would be labeled a character troll according to the link.

I said I have faith in science

Faith = belief without proof

So you think your belief in science is same as believing in unicorns.

If science is about things you can see, then what is allthat stuff about quantum physics I hear about. 

Mostly fantasy, like unicorns.

There is an entire army of people writing all kinds of fictional theories, many even contradicting each other. Its all done to milk money from donors, to make it seem like they are doing something. While indirect observations are possible, they are based on inductive reasoning which can be flawed. Basically, they take observation from place A and assume that same exists in place B.

I didn’t say “all faith is true”

How do you determine which faith is true and which faith isnt true?

You are just a fountain of deep insights, can I quote you on that too?

You can.

If you don't know anything at all about philosophy, then why did you start a thread about philosophy? 

The thread is about faith being a logical fallacy. If you want to discuss philosophy, sure. Many philosophers were literally insane. Zeno made pointless arguments about how movement is impossible. Plato believed that you cant actually learn anything except what you already know. Aristotle believed in the existence of soul and made some works of fiction about it. To put it simply, philosophers dont seek truth. They seek to be absurd and mock general knowledge. Philosophers arent really something you go for when seeking truth. This is why science is about observable things. Usually, where observation ends, imagination begins.

It is the topic, you don't even understand your own post?

Topic is: Faith is a logical fallacy.

Thus, things which are not faith are probably irrelevant to the topic.

This idea that everything is faith is your idea, not mine.

You said belief in science is faith. So it seems to be very much your idea.

You are really talking about yourself in this thread, you obviously lack a way to determine what is true, that's why you can't bring yourself to make a true statement.

It is a true statement that faith is a logical fallacy, as proved by its lack of ability to determine whats true.

I think it's time to go back to talking to Shila about your dick.

If girls talk about your dick, its usually a good thing unless they talk about how small or ugly it is.

LOL, oh yes, please do teach me all about science Einstein, I could use me some learning about that science stuff.

Well, first you need to learn about observation.

The difference between science and faith is that science is about things you can see, where faith is about things you cant see.

For example, if I tell you that I hear the voice of God in my head, you would need faith to believe me. But you say all faith is true, so I guess you would have to believe me.

I have faith in science

So your belief in science is faith.

I'm talking about philosophy

Most philosophers were considered insane. Most philosophers begin with logic, but end up with crap.

Is that why you can't give a single example of something you believe that isn't based on faith?

Its irrelevant to the topic.

If you think everything is faith, then you lack a way to determine what is true.

Science usually uses observations, not faith. This is why they say "proved by observation". They dont say "proved by faith".

I understand that you think your faith is on equal level as scientific observations, which is a common delusion religious people have.

However, if you lack ability to determine if something is true, then you cannot at the same time have ability to determine if something is true.

This is very simple.

People who have faith by definition have no ability to determine if their belief is true.

If they had such ability, then their belief would be proved and it would be considered scientific.

So, unless you want to change definition of faith, at this point you might as well claim that magic is real.

Something never comes from nothing.

It's time to rethink what created the Universe.

It seems that your faith is based on magic.

By abandoning proof, you cannot at the same time have proof.

Proof represents the ability(the system) to determine what is true.

Thus, by abandoning the ability to determine what is true, you cannot at the same time have such ability.

So unless your faith isnt "belief without proof", I think we are done here.

If you want to contradict yourself, fine. I really dont care for your AI response, or your opinion that self-contradicting statement can be true.

an axiom is a statement that is accepted as true without proof

By that logic, everything is an axiom. But no, thats not what axiom is.

Do you not know what a logical contradiction is?

System for determining truth is a logical axiom.

If you remove the system and dont replace it with anything, then nothing can be considered true. Thus, your faith isnt true. But it is logically impossible for nothing to be true, thus the mere removal of a system is a logical fallacy.

If you remove the system and say that everything is true, then system also becomes true and you commit a contradiction.

Your only way is to replace this system with another system.

But there is no other system for determining truth other than by proof.

Thus, since you have no system to replace it with, it remains true.

In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true.

Can you prove that, or do you just take it on faith?

If proof is a requirement for something to be considered true, then the statement is true, as thats what it says.

If proof isnt a requirement for something to be considered true, then the statement above is true again.

Thus, the statement above cannot be "not true".

To say that "Proof isnt a requirement for something to be considered true" is a self negating statement, because if true, then the opposite statement of it must be considered true as well. A logical absurd.

Do you define faith as "belief without proof"?

In that case, faith is a logical  fallacy.

In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true.

In order to be right you have to IDENTIFY which answer is right. If you just say everything then you aren't right even if one of those things is right because you still don't know which one is right.

Well, remember that if you are rich you can buy growth hormones for your kid that will make him grow to 6'-7.

'Deep Stain On History': Critics Shred Trump Over 'Sickening' Move On His First Day.

Why else would you pardon all these people?

Political violence is acceptable if you wear a MAGA hat according to Trump and anyone that supports Trump after this decides that this isn't a deal breaker and to me, that makes literally no sense.

The reason is not because of economic policy (I'm fine with letting the trailer parks starve so I can save tax money); the sole reason is because Trump says anyone who hates or doesn't like him is a communist.

Alright; I'm a communist now.  The label I don't really care about.

Have you read the book 1984 where the government decided what was and wasn't true?

Thats what we have in Europe and Canada, and somewhat in USA.

If your reading this message, then your hallucinating. This site was shutdown on Jan 20th.  Please seek some alcohol to stop the hallucinations.

Humanity will come to an end 2015, was my prognostication based on the  formula involving;

1} triangulating { to get a fix on somethings location } ergo #3,

2} Cosmic Pi-time 66.4,

3} speed-of-EMradiation, that, led to a value coinciding with the human population in 2015. 

Where now 10 years beyond that date.

What's wrong with the poorly educated? 

Aww, why did you have to go admit you're a really good person publicly online? Now they will show you no mercy!

(I always kept your secret)

you have a lot of good points, that would need ironed out if this plan were to be implemented. but those are just the details.

i think the crux of the issue, is that i think home builders would just find a new price point that isn't so ridiculously high, and you think they wouldn't be able to muster it. only an empirical study of this would show who is right,

but, i think at least if we did this fifty years ago or sooner, it wouldn't be such a blast to the status quo. and, that's all you for sure have here... this would for sure be a blast to the status quo, and it could even cause recessions or even a depression if done the wrong way. but that's the thing with actual policy that actually helps people,

it's a crash to the status quo and scandalous if not a blast to the existing power brokers. that doesn't mean they're bad ideas,

they just need gradually phased in, or something. take almost any policy solution to the problems that ail us, and you will see existing power brokers lose out and entrenched lobbyists throw all hell at preventing change. this all doesn't mean all change is bad...

there's winners and losers to everything. that doesn't mean we shouldn’t try to form a more perfect union and do better. at any rate, this is a democracy and someone like trump would come along and deregulate it again and say it was common sense all along what we're doing. that dont mean it's true, though. most of major change that can help people, healthcare, gun policy, education, housing, etc, would require major shock to the system.

Just tear it all down, something good will come out of it, if everyone suffers we can be sure those secret bad people suffer too.

you'd be the one standing in the way every single time. what's your usual method to help people? just criticize other ideas, like libertarians, or maybe do you just like to take incremental approaches that aren't such a shock to the system? my guess is that you dont have too many original ideas, and maybe just some DNC talking points.

It makes sense if you can steal a person's life savings without killing him that is evidence enough for the government caring and not being greedy at all.

Home developers would still build houses. That's their thing, so they'd just find a new equilibrium on the price point.

Incomes r still high in the usa and some landlords would still own multiple properties.  

Instead of the the average house being 400k in the usa, which is self evidently absurd, maybe the new price point would be 200k.

I doubt it'd go as low as 100k but I dunno. Plus there would still be upward pressure in housing prices not just from high incomes, but our embedded mortgage system. The bottom line is that there would just be a better price point and u r too critical to obvious solutions. If u lived when cars were made, u would be one of the people saying cars hurtling past each other at 55 mph is a disaster waiting to happen. 

This seems like a California idea

California is one of the safest states in USA.

First corporations and foreigners shouldn't even be allowed to own houses

Next, to discourage rich people from hoarding property at the expense of others, 

the second house they own should be taxed at 10 percent of the profits, third house at 20 percent profits, and so forth, up to 90 percent tax on 10th and all subsequent houses.

Apartment buildings should be taxed the same way, except it's not based on number of apartments but number of buildings. This would encourage efficiency in building and living

This all would lower house prices and encourage more home ownership

Why is this such a bad idea?