Like drug dealing?

I was thinking more along the lines of possession and consumption, but sure, drug dealing could fit.

Suicide.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 21, 2014, 02:46:08 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 21, 2014, 02:44:53 PM

A Christian is a Christian and that's really it

So Jeffrey Dahmer was a good Christian?

No, nor was he bad. He was simply a Christian. Good and bad are subjective, just as morals are

That's why you go to hell for sinning, correct?

The distinction really is meaningless. Macroevolution is fundamentally identical to microevolution, just on a different timescale.

Evolution of the Serious board:
le Jesus face
Hamas news central
Kinderfest2014
Economics 101
Psykana Librarianus

I'm for it.

I should warn you, I'm a reactionary.

I won't allow my era to be usurped >.>

dat truescotsman doe

How is what I said NOT moral? I'm advocating for people that get hostile remarks and even attacks constantly.

datfallacyfallacy

In order for it to be a No True Scotsman, secularism and atheism would have to be the same thing.

I'm being just as militant as Door does with his atheism

First of all, Door is militant with his secularism, not his atheism.

Second of all, that has literally nothing to do with this thread. Aren't Christians supposed to have comparable, if not superior, moral reasoning? You don't seem to grasp the Golden Rule, at all.

I voted for option 1.

Who's steering where the technology evolution goes?

The consumers.

I don't think you're understanding the scientific geological factors here... like at all. Raw elements and materials cannot be expanded upon. We have only what the earth has to offer, and the question I'm asking is whether or not it's enough to create a middle class standard for all people AND to focus on technological innovation. I cannot tell if you just don't understand or if you're purposely ignoring my point, but it's frustrating either way.

And you don't seem to understand the market capacities for innovation. Raw elements and materials don't necessarily need to be expanded upon. If you use up raw materials, and diminish the supply (although, I might add, the USGS is quite confident on our incredibly ample supply of minerals) then technological innovation will result in ways, not previously known, to enhance the supply or the price will go up and only those willing to pay will have access and the market will develop alternatives to perform exactly the same purpose, as is what happened with copper.

Also, I answered your question. Massive re-distribution of wealth has the potential to cause deadweight loss which will slow, halt or even diminish economic activity and innovation - which will, in turn, slow technological advances. It also depends on your definition of "middle class", as everybody in America with zero income and subject to transfers are, by global standards, of the middle class.

Is that clear, now? Redistribution causes deadweight loss, which causes a slack in innovation, which causes a diminished capacity to efficiently exploit the Earth's resources or develop alternatives. The question of whether, if by some global regime, we could enforce middle-class standards (of whatever measure) on the entire population of the Earth is a mathematical one I can't answer, although I doubt the desirability of raising the floor to be in-line with the middle class and doubt the necessity of a government programme to increase bottom wealth in the first place.

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 21, 2014, 10:40:01 AM

Quarks vary too. There's at least six of them.

quarks vary just as much energy does, it's a natural occurrence in the world for something to have multiple variations, and that's why I think that they make up everything.

That isn't what he's asking, though.

If you want more wealth, you need to take it from someone else.

I'm not being facetious when I say that's the single-biggest fallacy among lay-economists.

In answer to your question, however, yes, wealth redistribution has the potential to cause deadweight loss on the economy.

but it's a little too superficial for my liking.

>implying donuts aren't the direct manifestation of the Lord on earth.

Heraclitus: "You can't eat the same donut twice".
Plato: "All donuts share in ideal 'donut-ness'".
Aristotle: "A donut contains its donut-ness".
Descartes: "A donut's hole proves the existence of a donut".
Locke: "Donuts taste good to me".
Hume: "Donuts exist because I imagine donuts".
Kant: "A donut is equal to my total experience of donuts".
Mill: "Donuts are good if they make people happy".
Kierkegaard: "I have faith that donuts are delicious".
Marx: "Everybody deserves donuts".
Nietzsche: "Stop at nothing to get your donuts".
Wittgenstein: "Fried pastry, zero, parking lot spin, spare tyre".
Beauvoir: "Patriarchy is responsible for the shape of the donut".

I hope this helps you understand philosophy better.

Quote from: challengerX on September 21, 2014, 07:24:00 AM

Two. Male and female. That's all that exists.

you cannot prove that anything truly exists, as all you know is simply the world as it is perceived by you. and we all know our senses and brains can be easily tricked.

doom pls

sounds like idealism