I don't find capitalism and socialism to be completely at odds with each other at all. They kinda mix nicely like chocolate and milk. Capitalism spurs innovation and economic growth. Socialism takes care of things that might not be profitable enough to grow at an acceptable rate like roads street lights and yes even what is essentially charity. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a place where firefighting and police protection needed to be paid for on an individual basis. I don't think a society will do well without one or the other but that's just me. The debate should be how much of each we should have.
@billydaman: best I can tell, you seem to be claiming that this "white privilege" idea is a form of reverse racism. It is not. The reason it is not is because white privilege is not about fallacious generalizing some quality to all white people. It's the opposite in fact - white privilege is the privilege of NOT having that happen to your group, and NOT having to suffer the detriments of it.
A "white" person will not be identified by their ethnicity above all other factors, unless he or she explicitly chooses to be identified that way. Think of it this way: in a game store where there's a bunch of guys, and only 1 regular who is female, she'll inevitably be thought of as "the girl" regardless of how much she defines herself by her gender, because her gender is her most obvious distinguishing feature. Substitute "black" or "asian" or "gay" and the same logic applies. When you're the exception, you're easily ignored/discounted/passed over, since it's so advantageous to cater to the majority in many MANY contexts.
But on the other hand, someone who is part of the empowered demographic majority will never be viewed this way, because they are in effect, the default. Their demographics don't identify them because their demographics don't set them apart as readily. No point in labeling someone "the girl" or "the black dude" when there's multiple women or colored people present. Because you are part of the majority, society defaults to catering to you; you never have to worry about being marginalized, and you never have to assert your equality, its just assumed. As such, straight white men don't generally deal with this kind of annoyance nearly as much, hence white/male/straight privilege.
EDIT: Note - white/straight privilege would exist in America even if there were no racism present. Being privileged as a result of being the majority does not require that the majority be actively oppressing minorities.
While I don't disagree per say you, in so far as people do discriminate against one another. Do understand that saying that a white person is never identified by their race first unless they choose to be is a statement you yourself prove as false later in your post. Like the guy in the knitting club, or the White rapper. If there is a trait that makes you stick out you will probably be described first and foremost with it.
While crude the "If you believe in god why not Santa" argument is not a strawman. A strawman would be these atheists setting theists up with a position they don't hold to argue against.
The aforementioned argument is just pointing out special pleading. It seems apt when ones opponent falls back to the "you can't prove god didn't x or y, isn't real or x doesn't require god with 100% confidence." We also cannot say with 100% certainty there is not a magic man named Santa that rewards children that meet some level of niceness requirement. To say that god requires less evidences to prove that it is real in this universe or another is special pleading.
The statement may be rude and a bit condescending but that doesn't mean it's a fallacy.
I prefer to be on offense in this format. Also every time I win because of a madcaped evasive dude feels dirty (I'm looking at you spiretracer/ skyknight)
I go on tilt when I make a misplay only to see what I did wrong half a second after shipping . Or when I play on online and get a little to F6 happy and miss things.
I think legalization at least in the United States would be a good move. Tax revenue is always a bonus. Also some sort of license to sell that would require a clean bill of health for the worker. This would also give the sex worker legal recourse if anyone tried to extort them for "protection" money (a.k.a pimp), rape or rob them they do not have now. Children obviously would still be off limits due to both labor laws and sex laws on the books not pertaining to prostitution.
I think it might just be that three of the guilds mechanics don't do anything when your not attacking. On top of that Extort and Evolve don't even suggest that you should be playing a defensive strategy though they can be helpful when you aim to do so.
Honestly I understand why she's in trouble and I support the right of the employer to terminate someone seen as damaging to their image. However for me this seems like a good time to do a bit of introspection when it comes to our cultural views on depictions of the naked human body. Because honestly I have seen much racier pictures in my life and before the age of 14. The only people that I feel sorry for are the adults that think they can keep things like this away from their children.
The problem isnt just in how sexual the picture are it is in who she is. It's one thing for kids to see random women's boobies. It's another thing to see an authority figure in a sexual way. It can easily create a major distraction.
While the pictures could potentially distract the class. This can easily be handled through performance evaluations. Authority figures seen in a sexual light doesn't even require pictures. There is even a song about it by Van Halen. Authorities being sexual beings isn't a problem as long as they are not using their positions to abuse others in any way.
Honestly I understand why she's in trouble and I support the right of the employer to terminate someone seen as damaging to their image. However for me this seems like a good time to do a bit of introspection when it comes to our cultural views on depictions of the naked human body. Because honestly I have seen much racier pictures in my life and before the age of 14. The only people that I feel sorry for are the adults that think they can keep things like this away from their children.
Honor and love are both terms we use to describe sets of actions, non personal experiences or emotions. Think of these words like the words large or small, they are somewhat vague but give you a general idea of what the persons trying to describe.
If what your arguing that God exists as a concept I wouldn't disagree with you. God as a physical construct requires evidence much like anything else we add to the list of things that exist in physical reality like rocks and trees.
It would have been more clear as something like "Search your library for three creatures with different names put one into your hand at random and shuffle the others back into your library" or something like that. the if is just confusing as all hell tbh.
You want to keep your legs about shoulder width apart and use both hands in an overhead motion. This should get you more accurate cuts while chopping wood.
Alright just watched the second video his system doesn't create a open market because the option to "not participate" isn't realistic. If you choose not to participate any dishonest man can have thugs show up and take your things because you have bought no protection and the company has no reason to rule fairly. Also he assumes that there will be a widely accepted currency and without central bodies of power this is not a given.
The idea of security agencies fighting entire wars on behalf of a country is hilarious. History shows that men in charge of large military organizations are not people you often want to leave your country in the hands of, as they will frequently decided not to relinquish that power.
If we were created in the image of God, then God is a very very simple pre-single cell organism.
One thing to keep in mind: The Theory of Evolution describes Evolution. We know with 100% certainty that evolution occurs. We can literally see it as it happen. What the theory of evolution does not do is try to predict how life began. That's a different science altogether that will be unraveled in due time.
Evolution exists. However, evolution existing does not preclude the possibility that complex lifeforms could have been spontaneously created by a deity.
It also doesn't preclude extraterrestrials leaving us here or altering our genetic code as an experiment.
I would say anytime they feel like it. While I may not agree with what they think or say I'm not going to ask them to not talk about something they feel is important.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I don't disagree per say you, in so far as people do discriminate against one another. Do understand that saying that a white person is never identified by their race first unless they choose to be is a statement you yourself prove as false later in your post. Like the guy in the knitting club, or the White rapper. If there is a trait that makes you stick out you will probably be described first and foremost with it.
The aforementioned argument is just pointing out special pleading. It seems apt when ones opponent falls back to the "you can't prove god didn't x or y, isn't real or x doesn't require god with 100% confidence." We also cannot say with 100% certainty there is not a magic man named Santa that rewards children that meet some level of niceness requirement. To say that god requires less evidences to prove that it is real in this universe or another is special pleading.
The statement may be rude and a bit condescending but that doesn't mean it's a fallacy.
While the pictures could potentially distract the class. This can easily be handled through performance evaluations. Authority figures seen in a sexual light doesn't even require pictures. There is even a song about it by Van Halen. Authorities being sexual beings isn't a problem as long as they are not using their positions to abuse others in any way.
If what your arguing that God exists as a concept I wouldn't disagree with you. God as a physical construct requires evidence much like anything else we add to the list of things that exist in physical reality like rocks and trees.
The idea of security agencies fighting entire wars on behalf of a country is hilarious. History shows that men in charge of large military organizations are not people you often want to leave your country in the hands of, as they will frequently decided not to relinquish that power.
It also doesn't preclude extraterrestrials leaving us here or altering our genetic code as an experiment.