When will the US fall?

[Static]

Probability means little. That something is predetermined makes more sense and also explains why something that was so unlikely yet still happened.

 

Deteriminism 1' date=' Free Will and Probablility as realism 0. WOO!

[/quote']

 

Deteriminism 1, Free Will and Probablility as realism 0

PWNED!

 

The thread goes to Static and I

:P

 

Prove it. Prove that determinism exists while at the same time free will and probability do not.

 

... I don't do the same job twice.....

[Catterjune]

Lol @ this topic' date=' and everyone in it.

[/quote']

 

Lol at you. Out of all the people in this topic, you made the most laughable posts, the most incorrect statements, and held the most flawed philosophy and ethical opinions.

 

Wow... the best I can honestly come back with is: "no u" to that incredibly stupid sentence.

 

You make yourself look so ignorant with each and every post you type.

[NP Sage]

Lol @ this topic' date=' and everyone in it.

[/quote']

 

Lol at you. Out of all the people in this topic, you made the most laughable posts, the most incorrect statements, and held the most flawed philosophy and ethical opinions.

 

Wow... the best I can honestly come back with is: "no u" to that incredibly stupid sentence.

 

You make yourself look so ignorant with each and every post you type.

 

@ pika PWNED by Static!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I used to think that. I was wrong then, and you are now. You lost. Go clean your wounds and come back for round 2.

 

 

Everything is affected by everything else. If free will exists then we all should be able to do whatever we wanted. Deteriminism explains the conscience pretty damn well. If free will existed we could do what we wanted without guilt. However most can't. Previous events told you that was wrong, thus you still think it is wrong. Most that don't have one have done what they are doing now before, thus it is acceptable to them now. Previous event come heavily into play.

[Catterjune]

Nah. Your whole argument is "but that's unfair!"

 

Life's unfair. Deal with it and grow up, children.

[loren]

And further more the us will fall, and the world will go in to chaos, and my empire will rise.

[NP Sage]

Nah. Your whole argument is "but that's unfair!"

 

Life's unfair. Deal with it and grow up' date=' children.

[/quote']

 

No my whole argument was we need to equalize. Not "life is unfair". Give back to people based on what they contribute.

[King of Games]

People continue to call the country the United States. How united are these states? Differing political views easily divide the states. the US(should just be called America) will most likely fall to another civil war.

 

Off topic: Canada is so much better.:)

[Catterjune]

Nah. Your whole argument is "but that's unfair!"

 

Life's unfair. Deal with it and grow up' date=' children.

[/quote']

 

No my whole argument was we need to equalize. Not "life is unfair". Give back to people based on what they contribute.

 

And why would need to equalize? Because things are unequal? But no! That would be unfair now wouldn't it?

 

Stop trying to pretend you're giving off major insight on stuff you have no idea about. If life was perfectly equally, with everyone getting exactly the same thing, you'd find what you get to be much much much lower then what you're living at right now.

[Static]

Nah. Your whole argument is "but that's unfair!"

 

Life's unfair. Deal with it and grow up' date=' children.

[/quote']

 

No my whole argument was we need to equalize. Not "life is unfair". Give back to people based on what they contribute.

 

And why would need to equalize? Because things are unequal? But no! That would be unfair now wouldn't it?

 

Stop trying to pretend you're giving off major insight on stuff you have no idea about. If life was perfectly equally, with everyone getting exactly the same thing, you'd find what you get to be much much much lower then what you're living at right now.

 

1. I am ignorant, get over it.

 

2. Thats what they teach you in school. You basically are reverberating Churchill word for word.

 

To be honest, equalizing would lower the standard of living for the wealthy and middle class to create a better standard of living for the lower class, and humanity as a whole. You fail to understand what the standard of living is outside of your little white bubble. The people of the USSR lived better lives than the half of the world in China, India and Africa during that time (and to this day). Just because we would have to demote every homed American and European to benefit the poorer people of Africa and India, so they can have a fair chance does not mean its a bad idea. Why should we let people suffer more than others? Because you like to think your only half as rich as you should be, and forget that others are worse off than you that could benefit from taking away from the rich? That's what's ignorant, the people who don't care about other people, who would simply let them suffer while you can glorify yourself by thinking you have truly achieved something when you make money.

 

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.

[Axiom_Nor]

soon.

we are 7 trillion dollars in debt to other countries, and its rappidly gaining.

 

we die.

[Catterjune]

1. I am ignorant' date=' get over it.

 

2. Thats what they teach you in school. You basically are reverberating Churchill word for word.

 

To be honest, equalizing would lower the standard of living for the wealthy and middle class to create a better standard of living for the lower class, and humanity as a whole. You fail to understand what the standard of living is outside of your little white bubble. The people of the USSR lived better lives than the half of the world in China, India and Africa during that time (and to this day). Just because we would have to demote every homed American and European to benefit the poorer people of Africa and India, so they can have a fair chance does not mean its a bad idea. Why should we let people suffer more than others? Because you like to think your only half as rich as you should be, and forget that others are worse off than you that could benefit from taking away from the rich? That's what's ignorant, the people who don't care about other people, who would simply let them suffer while you can glorify yourself by thinking you have truly achieved something when you make money.

 

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.

 

1. Ignorant people have no place in any civil discussion.

 

2. Prove what I'm "reverberating" is incorrect.

 

If everyone drops down to being equal in social standards, then there is no advancement in life. No goal to achieve, no scientific breakthroughs, etc. There would be no reason to work hard as you and your neighbor and everyone else get the same regardless of output.

 

In the end, no one will work hard since they don't have to, since there is no incentive, and society as a whole stagnates and never progresses.

[Static]

1. I am ignorant' date=' get over it.

 

2. Thats what they teach you in school. You basically are reverberating Churchill word for word.

 

To be honest, equalizing would lower the standard of living for the wealthy and middle class to create a better standard of living for the lower class, and humanity as a whole. You fail to understand what the standard of living is outside of your little white bubble. The people of the USSR lived better lives than the half of the world in China, India and Africa during that time (and to this day). Just because we would have to demote every homed American and European to benefit the poorer people of Africa and India, so they can have a fair chance does not mean its a bad idea. Why should we let people suffer more than others? Because you like to think your only half as rich as you should be, and forget that others are worse off than you that could benefit from taking away from the rich? That's what's ignorant, the people who don't care about other people, who would simply let them suffer while you can glorify yourself by thinking you have truly achieved something when you make money.

 

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.

 

1. Ignorant people have no place in any civil discussion.

 

2. Prove what I'm "reverberating" is incorrect.

 

If everyone drops down to being equal in social standards, then there is no advancement in life. No goal to achieve, no scientific breakthroughs, etc. There would be no reason to work hard as you and your neighbor and everyone else get the same regardless of output.

 

In the end, no one will work hard since they don't have to, since there is no incentive, and society as a whole stagnates and never progresses.

 

1. Being ignorant is a part of human nature, it is not something that someone is not, every living human being is ignorant to some degree.

 

People will realize they need to work to live. They will do their part, which will be the same as their neighbor's. Of course, there will be power intact to make sure the work gets done, bad genetics are removed, and to keep people in line if they refuse to help society (and for Euthanasia administration). The goal of evolution is a perfect race, why shouldn't we try to speed it up?

[Catterjune]

1. Being ignorant is a part of human nature' date=' it is not something that someone is not, every living human being is ignorant to some degree.

 

People will realize they need to work to live. They will do their part, which will be the same as their neighbor's. Of course, there will be power intact to make sure the work gets done, bad genetics are removed, and to keep people in line if they refuse to help society (and for Euthanasia administration). The goal of evolution is a perfect race, why shouldn't we try to speed it up?

[/quote']

 

1. Right, you have a right to be ignorant on things, and I'm plenty ignorant on plenty of things. However, I typically don't speak on things I have no clue about. I'd either stop being ignorant on the subject and pick up a book, or stop stating ignorant things about it.

 

You seem to completely miss the point of evolution. It's nothing about perfection, since perfection is purely subjective. Someone's idea of perfect could be someone else's idea of horrifying. There can never ever ever be a perfect human race.

 

If people all do the same work, then nothing will ever change for better or for worse. If you do not have to go the extra mile, would you?

 

The point isn't that no work gets done. The point is that everyone just does the bare minimum to get by, because there is no incentive to work harder. Need an example? Look no further then Russia, China, and Cuba during their communist days.

 

Honestly, stop posting, especially since it's the same argument I've debunked time and time again.

[Static]

1. Being ignorant is a part of human nature' date=' it is not something that someone is not, every living human being is ignorant to some degree.

 

People will realize they need to work to live. They will do their part, which will be the same as their neighbor's. Of course, there will be power intact to make sure the work gets done, bad genetics are removed, and to keep people in line if they refuse to help society (and for Euthanasia administration). The goal of evolution is a perfect race, why shouldn't we try to speed it up?

[/quote']

 

1. Right, you have a right to be ignorant on things, and I'm plenty ignorant on plenty of things. However, I typically don't speak on things I have no clue about. I'd either stop being ignorant on the subject and pick up a book, or stop stating ignorant things about it.

 

You seem to completely miss the point of evolution. It's nothing about perfection, since perfection is purely subjective. Someone's idea of perfect could be someone else's idea of horrifying. There can never ever ever be a perfect human race.

 

If people all do the same work, then nothing will ever change for better or for worse. If you do not have to go the extra mile, would you?

 

The point isn't that no work gets done. The point is that everyone just does the bare minimum to get by, because there is no incentive to work harder. Need an example? Look no further then Russia, China, and Cuba during their communist days.

 

Honestly, stop posting, especially since it's the same argument I've debunked time and time again.

 

1. No issue.

 

Below 1.

 

Perfection is subjective because we give people the right to have an opinion. If we educate them on what they should think, and they believe it, then there is no issue. If everyone believes we have perfection, we have it. The problem is convincing them how to achieve it and that we have when we achieve it.

 

I would not go the extra mile, we would be satisfied with what we have that we see no need to improve technology unless that is what you are required to do.

 

Obviously they do the bare minimum, but they will still get something done. Last time I checked, China was a communist nation.

[Catterjune]

1. No issue.

 

Below 1.

 

Perfection is subjective because we give people the right to have an opinion. If we educate them on what they should think' date=' and they believe it, then there is no issue. If everyone believes we have perfection, we have it. The problem is convincing them how to achieve it and that we have when we achieve it.

 

I would not go the extra mile, we would be satisfied with what we have that we see no need to improve technology unless that is what you are required to do.

 

Obviously they do the bare minimum, but they will still get something done. Last time I checked, China was a communist nation.

[/quote']

 

We don't give people the right to have an opinion. God does, but let's not turn this into a religious debate.

The argument is free market, and if that will be the fall of America. Can we argue that without getting into theological and philosophical debates?

 

From what you've had to what you will have, a majority of the people would not be satisfied. I find it humorous how you say your method would speed up evolution of society, when you say it does the opposite, claiming there will be no need to improve. Also, since about the 90s, China has allowed some free markets to develop, and those that chose to go the capitalist route flourished.

 

The point is, the bare minimum is not enough, and you're quite an underachiever for even considering that it would ever be enough.

[NP Sage]

1. Being ignorant is a part of human nature' date=' it is not something that someone is not, every living human being is ignorant to some degree.

 

People will realize they need to work to live. They will do their part, which will be the same as their neighbor's. Of course, there will be power intact to make sure the work gets done, bad genetics are removed, and to keep people in line if they refuse to help society (and for Euthanasia administration). The goal of evolution is a perfect race, why shouldn't we try to speed it up?

[/quote']

 

1. Right, you have a right to be ignorant on things, and I'm plenty ignorant on plenty of things. However, I typically don't speak on things I have no clue about.

 

:shock: Yet you still continue to post.

 

I'd either stop being ignorant on the subject and pick up a book, or stop stating ignorant things about it.

 

:shock: Yet you still continue to post.:shock:

 

You seem to completely miss the point of evolution. It's nothing about perfection, since perfection is purely subjective. Someone's idea of perfect could be someone else's idea of horrifying. There can never ever ever be a perfect human race.

That depends on what is defined as perfect.

 

If people all do the same work, then nothing will ever change for better or for worse. If you do not have to go the extra mile, would you?

Some would. We call them Overachievers. They thrive on going above and beyond.

 

The point isn't that no work gets done. The point is that everyone just does the bare minimum to get by, because there is no incentive to work harder.

 

Yes, there is. to improve society as a whole. Technology will still advance. People still have hobbies. Most of the greatest technological advancements were done by people and their hobbies.

 

Need an example? Look no further then Russia, China, and Cuba during their communist days.

 

Because of interference by other countries.

 

Honestly, stop posting, especially since it's the same argument I've debunked time and time again.

 

Hey Static, have you seen her debunk anything? I've seen her spit out some stuff that got me confused. Then again some of the things Googler posted confused me too.:P

[Catterjune]

 

:shock: Yet you still continue to post.

 

:shock: Yet you still continue to post.:shock:

 

Where have I been incorrect in this thread? Name some of them.

 

That depends on what is defined as perfect.

 

We already came to the obvious conclusion perfection is subjective' date=' please try to keep up. Someone might think a beautiful girl with blonde hair is perfect. Someone else may think a redhead is perfect.

 

Some would. We call them Overachievers. They thrive on going above and beyond.

 

They only go above and beyond in hopes of getting something.

 

Yes, there is. to improve society as a whole. Technology will still advance. People still have hobbies. Most of the greatest technological advancements were done by people and their hobbies.

 

Most of the greatest technological advancements came from necessity (domestication of animals, the plow, the wheel) and greed (the cotton gin, the railroad), not hobbies.

 

Because of interference by other countries.

 

Hey Static, have you seen her debunk anything? I've seen her spit out some stuff that got me confused. Then again some of the things Googler posted confused me too.:P

 

You're the one who keeps spitting out the same argument, not me.

[NP Sage]

 

:shock: Yet you still continue to post.

 

:shock: Yet you still continue to post.:shock:

 

Where have I been incorrect in this thread? Name some of them.

 

That depends on what is defined as perfect.

 

We already came to the obvious conclusion perfection is subjective' date=' please try to keep up. Someone might think a beautiful girl with blonde hair is perfect. Someone else may think a redhead is perfect.

 

Some would. We call them Overachievers. They thrive on going above and beyond.

 

They only go above and beyond in hopes of getting something.

 

That may be what you do. I work for application. That will still be around.

 

Yes, there is. to improve society as a whole. Technology will still advance. People still have hobbies. Most of the greatest technological advancements were done by people and their hobbies.

 

Most of the greatest technological advancements came from necessity (domestication of animals, the plow, the wheel) and greed (the cotton gin, the railroad), not hobbies.

None of those were what I would call "necessitys".

They were made to make a job easier. People will still be doing jobs and as humans are lazy, they will continue to look for ways to things easier.

 

Because of interference by other countries.

 

Hey Static, have you seen her debunk anything? I've seen her spit out some stuff that got me confused. Then again some of the things Googler posted confused me too.:P

 

You're the one who keeps spitting out the same argument, not me.

[Catterjune]

... Did you just qoute me without even responding? 0_o

[Static]

1. No issue.

 

Below 1.

 

Perfection is subjective because we give people the right to have an opinion. If we educate them on what they should think' date=' and they believe it, then there is no issue. If everyone believes we have perfection, we have it. The problem is convincing them how to achieve it and that we have when we achieve it.

 

I would not go the extra mile, we would be satisfied with what we have that we see no need to improve technology unless that is what you are required to do.

 

Obviously they do the bare minimum, but they will still get something done. Last time I checked, China was a communist nation.

[/quote']

 

We don't give people the right to have an opinion. God does, but let's not turn this into a religious debate.

The argument is free market, and if that will be the fall of America. Can we argue that without getting into theological and philosophical debates?

 

From what you've had to what you will have, a majority of the people would not be satisfied.[1]

 

/

 

I find it humorous how you say your method would speed up evolution of society, when you say it does the opposite, claiming there will be no need to improve.[2]

 

/

 

Also, since about the 90s, China has allowed some free markets to develop, and those that chose to go the capitalist route flourished.[3]

 

/

 

The point is, the bare minimum is not enough, and you're quite an underachiever for even considering that it would ever be enough.[4]

 

 

 

1. With the wealth distributed, more will be happy with it than those unhappy with it.

 

Have compassion for all beings' date=' rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.[/quote']

 

2. Evolution of society is not how advanced we are technologically and materialistically, it is how advanced the human mind becomes, how apt it is at understanding the truth, but this is of course, a theological issue, so it shan't be addresses further.

 

3. China needs to become a power, and to get power when you exist in a world of free market countries, you need to have some free markets.

Ideally, the Earth would consist of one country, and a restricted market is most efficient in a single country with no foreign trade.

 

4. Enough is whatever one sees to be enough. I clearly care less for my objects than you do for you to consider that life is worth the effort that isn't required. You believe that an average achievement is more than what we can get by on.

 

Again, I emphasize

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

[NP Sage]

... Did you just qoute me without even responding? 0_o

 

Read the post. Slap yourself. Then go away.

[Catterjune]

From what you've had to what you will have' date=' a majority of the people would not be satisfied.[1']

 

/

 

I find it humorous how you say your method would speed up evolution of society, when you say it does the opposite, claiming there will be no need to improve.[2]

 

/

 

Also, since about the 90s, China has allowed some free markets to develop, and those that chose to go the capitalist route flourished.[3]

 

/

 

The point is, the bare minimum is not enough, and you're quite an underachiever for even considering that it would ever be enough.[4]

1. With the wealth distributed, more will be happy with it than those unhappy with it.

 

Have compassion for all beings' date=' rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.[/quote']

 

2. Evolution of society is not how advanced we are technologically and materialistically, it is how advanced the human mind becomes, how apt it is at understanding the truth, but this is of course, a theological issue, so it shan't be addresses further.

 

3. China needs to become a power, and to get power when you exist in a world of free market countries, you need to have some free markets.

Ideally, the Earth would consist of one country, and a restricted market is most efficient in a single country with no foreign trade.

 

4. Enough is whatever one sees to be enough. I clearly care less for my objects than you do for you to consider that life is worth the effort that isn't required. You believe that an average achievement is more than what we can get by on.

 

Again, I emphasize

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

 

1. The people who are unhappy would have their standard of living only slightly increased' date=' while those that have earned and worked hard for their money lose everything they worked for. I'm cool with Buddha's teaching, however suffering is life. If you're just gonna pick and choose which of Buddha's quotes to use when they benefit your cause that's cool though.

 

2. The human mind can only show how well it has advanced by what it designs. If we're able to build large skyscrapers out of nothing, is that not a testament to the human mind? Are you saying that all of man's achievements are nothing?

 

3. Prove it.

 

4. So your argument is that "enough" and "bare minimum" is subjective now? You know this COMPLETELY throws out your entire argument, right? "In my opinion, everyone in third world countries has enough food, because enough is subjective according to Static."

 

... Did you just qoute me without even responding? 0_o

 

Read the post. Slap yourself. Then go away.

 

In other words, you did. If you don't have anything smart to say (which you haven't since the topic began) perhaps you're the one who should be going away.

[NP Sage]

In other words you can't read. Reread it.

[HORUS]

Single Communist Country = Ideal

[Static]

From what you've had to what you will have' date=' a majority of the people would not be satisfied.[1']

 

/

 

I find it humorous how you say your method would speed up evolution of society, when you say it does the opposite, claiming there will be no need to improve.[2]

 

/

 

Also, since about the 90s, China has allowed some free markets to develop, and those that chose to go the capitalist route flourished.[3]

 

/

 

The point is, the bare minimum is not enough, and you're quite an underachiever for even considering that it would ever be enough.[4]

1. With the wealth distributed, more will be happy with it than those unhappy with it.

 

Have compassion for all beings' date=' rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.[/quote']

 

2. Evolution of society is not how advanced we are technologically and materialistically, it is how advanced the human mind becomes, how apt it is at understanding the truth, but this is of course, a theological issue, so it shan't be addresses further.

 

3. China needs to become a power, and to get power when you exist in a world of free market countries, you need to have some free markets.

Ideally, the Earth would consist of one country, and a restricted market is most efficient in a single country with no foreign trade.

 

4. Enough is whatever one sees to be enough. I clearly care less for my objects than you do for you to consider that life is worth the effort that isn't required. You believe that an average achievement is more than what we can get by on.

 

Again, I emphasize

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

 

1. The people who are unhappy would have their standard of living only slightly increased' date=' while those that have earned and worked hard for their money lose everything they worked for. I'm cool with Buddha's teaching, however suffering is life. If you're just gonna pick and choose which of Buddha's quotes to use when they benefit your cause that's cool though.

 

2. The human mind can only show how well it has advanced by what it designs. If we're able to build large skyscrapers out of nothing, is that not a testament to the human mind? Are you saying that all of man's achievements are nothing?

 

3. Prove it.

 

4. So your argument is that "enough" and "bare minimum" is subjective now? You know this COMPLETELY throws out your entire argument, right? "In my opinion, everyone in third world countries has enough food, because enough is subjective according to Static."

 

... Did you just qoute me without even responding? 0_o

 

Read the post. Slap yourself. Then go away.

 

In other words' date=' you did. If you don't have anything smart to say (which you haven't since the topic began) perhaps you're the one who should be going away.

[/quote']

 

1. Find a relevant Buddha quote that does not help my cause.

 

2. Only the ones that have improved state of mind are truly important. Have we ever lived outside of our own mind?

 

3. A country with tight restrictions on the people would need to make sure their marketable success is limited, we can't let some people become wealthy while others are not, or else that would ruin the point of a unified, equalized country. People being able to proclaim that they are better than another in any way, to classify others as less than they are, is the problem. It is the reason why a unified world is desirable to anyone who isn't full of themself. (I'm not trying to imply you are full of yourself, just making a general statement)

 

4. But others have more, and that is the problem I have with it. They should suffer equally so that the classes can disappear.