This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 249250251 252253 ... 502
7501
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:32:07 PM »
 get #shrekt nerf-herders
7502
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:27:47 PM »
Was it bascially a safe for work porno?
>sfw 
7503
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:24:33 PM »
Man that sure is interesting thank you forsharing man thank you
I made it just for you. I saw your post on the front page.
7504
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:23:18 PM »
How was the movie?
Fucking terrible.
7505
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:22:57 PM »
What separates them from adults? Because children don't pay taxes? Newsflash, they do pay taxes.
This always rubbed me wrong. I know in the grand scheme of things my vote doesn't really affect anything, but wasn't America's independence sparked by the outrage of being taxed without representation in the legislature? Why should 16-year-old me shell out a chunk of my paycheck if I can't participate in a citizen's civic duties?
You fucking pay taxes while you're a minor? Oh, in saying that, the government did tax the interest on my savings a few years back.
7506
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:20:17 PM »
I went to see 50 Shades of Grey with my friends Sally and Luke, and then we went to a bar for about an hour. Now I'm here.
All in all, best Valentine's Day I've ever had. . .
7507
« on: February 14, 2015, 08:57:25 AM »
The silence is deafening.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I can't say I'm surprised. You have a tendency to post the same or similar threads with a lot of economic/political jargon which can put off a lot of users, including myself.
Just a little friendly advice from one user to another.
That's not even what I mean. It feels like the entire board is a bit dead, recently.
7508
« on: February 14, 2015, 08:16:32 AM »
Ugh, no. This is how I like my women:
7509
« on: February 14, 2015, 08:13:34 AM »
Look at the pain you are complicit in.
7510
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:46:17 AM »
Your mom screaming while I raped and murdered her simultaneously.
7511
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:44:27 AM »
How can you throw away a career that doesn't exist.  that logic
That's a 10/10 gif.
7512
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:26:14 AM »
That's what I base my personal belief on - all possibilities are equally possible
I'm not sure how you could justify that. It just seems mathematically null. Like, it's one order of improbability that Jesus will come back in 50 years. It's a whole other order of improbability that he'll come back in 50 years to Massachusetts. If you think all possibilities are equally possible, you have no way of justifying your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. And yet, there is no epistemic middle-ground. The negation of X is that "the sun will not rise tomorrow", which would obviously induce certain behaviours from yourself. You can't be in a state of 'neutrality' with regards to this question, since the negation of belief one way induces the opposite proposition. "I lack a belief that the sun will rise" is qualitatively equal to "I believe the sun will not rise", and vice versa.
7513
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:22:55 AM »
There doesn't have to be. It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of personal belief.
 If you're basing your various values and beliefs on un-empirical and irrational considerations, you literally do not deserve to be taken serious in any discussion ever. In fact, I think doing something like that would qualify for a genuine delusion or psychosis of some kind.
7514
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:20:44 AM »
Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity.
Oh, so you're basing your argument on a straw-man? Unless by "disprove" you mean "demonstrate the extreme improbability of", it's a straw-man. While you can absolutely disprove certain conceptions of a creator deity, no (sane) atheist has ever claimed to be able to empirically show the lack of some tenuous creator deity.
7515
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:17:48 AM »
people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.
That's true, though. If you aren't an agnostic theist, you're an atheist no matter to what extent. It's basic philosophy really, the two ideas make claims to different concerns.
7516
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:15:29 AM »
but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
Did you really just say that? Not only is it at odds with any conception of rationality and empiricism, it goes against the fairly standard theology of people like Thomas Aquinas too.
7517
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:12:16 AM »
Jesus obviously existed.
He just wasn't, by any measure, divine.
7518
« on: February 14, 2015, 03:41:08 AM »
The silence is deafening.
7519
« on: February 14, 2015, 03:38:16 AM »
They may support it violence, but they don't commit it.
Y'know Hitler never actually killed anybody. . . It's a line not even worth drawing.
7520
« on: February 13, 2015, 04:51:52 PM »
whoooop half term next week
fucken yes son
7521
« on: February 13, 2015, 04:47:00 PM »
Just say it's against your religion to work on Sunday.
It's literally the only day I work.
7522
« on: February 13, 2015, 04:41:30 PM »
 I am, however, going to watch 50 Shades of Grey in the cinema tomorrow, though. That'll be interesting.
7523
« on: February 13, 2015, 04:36:11 PM »
Never would've guessed he's a Muslim.
7524
« on: February 13, 2015, 02:32:03 PM »
Obama.
7525
« on: February 13, 2015, 02:19:43 PM »
Demonstrated by a study from Sweden, of all places. An interpretation that therefore offers itself is one of reallocation costs during crisis. As a crisis hits an economy, a substantial share of resources become unemployed, which creates profit opportunities for entrepreneurs to the extent that these resources become cheaper. Yet, whether or not this happens and at which speed existing firms and new entrants can reallocate resources depends on the regulatory framework. Licensing requirements and similar business regulations constitute entry barriers that prevent entrepreneurs from seizing legal opportunities and thereby limiting the economic and social losses during crises. Unstable monetary policies and inflationary interventions prevent the formation of precise price expectations, thereby increasing uncertainty, which would also hold back new investments (Friedman, 1962). Finally, labour market regulations can make it both more expensive and risky to hire new employees, providing a third channel through which deficient or inefficient regulations significantly increase the transaction costs of reallocation. Consistent with the evidence, this does not prevent a crisis from occurring, but limits its extent as more firms in a flexible economy can react faster and in a more economical way to the challenges and opportunities created by the crisis.
7526
« on: February 13, 2015, 01:40:52 PM »
Of course you don't, despite the CBO's predictions, the U.S. didn't enter a Recession in 2013. What did the CBO say would happen under the " alternative fiscal scenario", which included fiscal austerity induced by tax hikes? With those and other policy changes contained in current law, the deficit will shrink to an estimated $641 billion in fiscal year 2013 (or 4.0 percent of GDP), almost $500 billion less than the shortfall in 2012 (see Summary Table 1). Such fiscal tightening will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession, with real GDP declining by 0.5 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013 [with unemployment at 9pc] Under a scenario assuming no austerity: In 2013, the deficit would total $1.0 trillion, almost $400 billion (or 2.5 percent of GDP) more than the deficit projected to occur under current law. The economy would be stronger in 2013: Real GDP would grow by 1.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013 [with unemployment at 8pc] How did the U.S. economy do in 2013? RGDP rose by 3.1pc (or 2.2pc depending on your aggregation method), and unemployment hit 6.7pc. Not only did the economy outperform predictions for fiscal austerity, it outperformed the predictions which assumed no austerity. All of this, bear in mind, when austerity as a result of tax cuts are worse than austerity as a result of spending cuts and most of the austerity in 2013 did indeed come from tax cuts. What explains this? In December 2012, the Fed announced an expansion in its quantitative easing programme. Fiscal austerity is a non-issue given accommodative monetary policy.
7527
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:40:05 AM »
I'm pretty sure every single extremist was poor, but there are plenty of rich and middle class radicals.
There's no way in hell Osama bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and Abu Nidal were poor.
7528
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:44:35 AM »
What about the proclivity for gang violence to occur in impoverished or unhealthy areas? Isn't that a form of radicalism?
I can't comment with any authority, but it could be to do with the criminal "culture" of poor, black neighbourhoods as opposed to any exceptionally poverty-driven phenomenon. Gangs are to do with community, not ideology. When it comes to crime, that sort of environment will lend itself to gang-violence; white-collar crime, including drug-abuse, still occurs. It's just nowhere near as overt. Not to mention, Millennials, as a generation, are quite civic and law-abiding. Most violence we do see among these communities is more likely residual than proactive.
7529
« on: February 13, 2015, 03:04:20 AM »
If anything there's a correlation between poor socioeconomic status and a lack of fundamentalism. Can we please begin to accept, for once and for all, that beliefs and values motivate behaviour primarily.
7530
« on: February 13, 2015, 02:03:01 AM »
bring people in for war crimes Considering Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld aren't locked up, I doubt that'll ever happen.
You have a twisted sense of justice if you think people should be locked up despite committing no crimes.
Pages: 1 ... 249250251 252253 ... 502
|
Show Posts
