Yes, Paul says a lot of things, and they pretty much disagree with everything Jesus said... I don't put a lot of credit in Paul or his sayings. This article is a very good explanation of why. Excerpt:
Cat vs dog...very simple..one side has already won,because there's one cat..That is....so awesome...it's name..... NYAN CAT!!!!!!! x3
Of course you would focus on the one commandment that made a little sense, and ignore all the other ones uttered in the same context. Eating camel and rabbit are also forbidden, yet they don't pose said threat. Neither does the prohibited seafood, or most of the other prohibited foods. I also love that "The Lord" (yes, this was supposedly said by god directly to Moses and Aaron) groups bats in with birds. Apparently he doesn't know his own creation all that well. Oh, and Jesus supposedly put an end to these hilarious prohibitions? They didn't know any better at Jesus time about avoiding the potential harm of eating incorrectly prepared pork, so how is that an excuse? See, here's where you go wrong: You read or hear something, and it doesn't make sense to you. Instead of accepting that it doesn't make sense, and cast it aside—as you would with everything else that doesn't make sense to you—you start making up rationalizations in order to justify the senseless. You're giving Christianity special treatment, in an attempt to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise surface. Rationally held beliefs don't cause cognitive dissonance. Irrational ones do. You clearly have no idea what evolution is, based on the things you are saying here. I will post a video that presents evolution excellently. The part most relevant to your question about apes and humans is at 6:47-7:47, though you should watch the whole thing, so you don't ask questions that display such clear misunderstanding of the topic at hand in the future. Familiarize yourself with the topics you want to discuss before you discuss them, otherwise your opponents—who actually know the topic—won't take you seriously.
Apple v Windows To my understanding a lot of the software that is in an apple computer is written by Microsoft. The 2 companies have worked together on many projects over the years. apples main customer base in the early years was major corporations such as Banks etc. Bill gates worked in the industry and seen the potential that computers could have if they could be reduced in size. Around the same time Steve Job's was working away in his garage building his first apple computer which did not have a case. The vision for both Bill and Steve where from opposite ends, one looked at the inside the other the outside. With his Idea Bill approached IBM the real brains behind the computer and made a deal of several lifetimes. IBM lost out to the Billions that Bill has made, but then at the time no one even considered the possibility that every home would have or even want a computer. Computers where huge things at the time, and where for big companies that needed calculations done faster and more accurate then humans. The idea of ppl using them for every day life was something they could not comprehend, or would simply laugh at. For many years Apple focused on big companies for its product, to them big companies = big $. Then at some stage Steve Jobs looked at Bill Gates and thought I have a great product and a better product then Microsoft and yet Bill was classed as the richest man in the world. Why!! Because although his market was selling cheap computers to every day ppl with very little software atm he was selling to so many ppl that his profits out stripped Apple. So Apple decided to change how it was doing business buy building the mac pc and rather then stick it in a grey plastic case with separate monitor. They integrated their mac and produced it clear flashy colours. As to how good they where, which was better PC or mac pc, while Microsoft produced a lot and sold a lot of pc, essentially they where not that great at all, basically a fancy word processor and not much else. Apple on the other hand was miles ahead, their focus on graphics meant their computers where used mostly in media production. However today their is not a lot in it between Microsoft and Apple's pc's. It is more a choice thing you either like one or the other. I have never owned a mac, mainly because of price while I would love to have one I would never pay the price almost twice the price of a Windows pc. As for the software again its only in recent years that you have been able to use windows based software on a mac and to that you need a software-bridge which is usually an additional price. If money was not an option I would try out a mac, I know there would no difference in the performance now but it would still be good to try it out to really see what the differences are. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs although competitors where friends for many years. Their are few ppl that ever have the kind of vision both these two had. I know they did not invent the computer but they seen the potential in them in a way no one else did. What is to say that you don't have what they had, who knows you could be the next Bill Gates or the next Steve Jobs. R.I.P. Steve Jobs
Okay, I'm going to start a new argument by following the standard internet paradigm of posting my opinion and waiting for the you-know-what storm. All armies should be abolished.
Yes. However, it will not be happening any time soon, due to lack of trust between nations. Had only the "western" or "first world" countries existed, we may have been able to do this, as we are all pretty much in happy agreement these days... but there are currently way too many conflicts (and these are just the "active" ones, not including any non-violent conflicts that may burst into violent ones any day) in the world for this to be reasonably accomplished.
I really Don't care if this has been already addressed I just wanted to point out some stuff. 1. Sofware and Hardware is not "Designed" by the same company maybe part of the software is but most utilities are made by other companies including from Microsoft. 2. Awesome is really dependent of the person, I personally find it crucially devastating to see everything looks like it was made in a mental hospital. 3. Umm, that is because its capabilities are pretty limited as what you're using is a Horse with Gringolas. But I guess they make it like that cause each part of a Mac is 5x the price of a part for a PC.a Good example is a 2 GB ram for a Mac cost $250, while a 4 GB Ram for a PC cost $25 DDR3 to be specific. 4. Here I agree 100% that Windows 8 is a Cummy thing, I don't know what Microsoft is thinking but if they Wanted a Huge Mobile Device they Should had just made a MicroPad (Micro standing for the Companies name). Cause that is what Windows 8 looks like a Mobile Device placed inside a Tower PC. 5. It is only "Virus Free" Because many virus makers aren't interested in such a low market attraction. PC in the other hand has a vast market, hence its more attractive to piss people off and ruin their hardware but Mac's are used as vessels to carry Viruses around and you don't detect it if there is no Anti-virus on your system hence affecting friends and family members without knowing. Cons: 1. The "High Quality" Concept is irrelevant, cause how you see the "Quality" Depends on the use and the persons View of the system. If its only for office work or making music, videos ect. which is what Macs are usually used for, well yes its in fact a better quality as there is a vast amount of software to help you with Music and Video editing ect. but if we are going to talk about Gaming, PC eats Mac away. Also PC eats Mac away at software editing although Hands down Linux Does that Job better, Its more compatible with that sorta thing. 2. Indeed, but PC out does even PS3, the thing is that most people don't have the cash to burn on a PC gaming system, hence why the market is low and most games are below Top-notch PC hardware. 3. But the Alternatives are Harder to use or get to work or They are just not as good.
In a utopian idealistic world, this would of course be great. However, there are to many dangers and too much evil in this world for this to happen. All of the peaceful countries might follow this mandate, but there would be many who would not, and easily take advantage of a now helpless world. It is similar to the argument on gun control. Also, bump....this thread deserves a bump.
Gun Control & World Peace Solutions: 1. Rise the Price supper high on Guns. 2. Limit its access by Forcing everyone to have participated in the Military for at least 5 years before being allowed access to guns, This would totally change the police department but what do I care, Militia! 3. Abolish the electric chair and instead donate those on death row to scientific research this way we get results way faster since we can experiment on humans freely without restrictions they have no rights anyways. 4. Strict Law, By that I mean, anything that involves death and damage to humans should = Death Row automatically no year sentence. year sentences only apply for thief's. 5. all Plane cargo on export/import should be checked. 6. Finally My Personal Favorite, Autocracy! No Socialism, Communism, Democracy! and for those who don't know what Autocracy means here is a definition: An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme political power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control. Its a lot like my all time favorite Absolute Monarchy <3
Assuming you're talking about the US, I'm pretty sure that is the sort of thing that will make the NRA go crazy. This is meant to be a world peace solution? Firstly, that would be boycotted by the NRA and the opposition of gun control, and encouraging people to aid a military force will not promote world peace. The US is not always right. It does not handle everything right. Chief among what it screws up is war. I view the War On Terror as an unnecessary conflict caused by American scaremongering. Abolish execution altogether. I view the right to be rehabilitated as fundamental, there are a number of hereditary and environmental factors which heavily influence whether or not a person commits a crime. I believe criminals should be rehabilitated to a point where they repent what they have done, and repay their debt to society by preventing an equal or greater amount of crime than they have committed. Having a death penalty at all is something I find highly dubious for the reasons above, expanding it that much will make society intolerant of even basic human error. And we're all susceptible to that, so it's self-destructive. A lot of airway cargo is checked already, to make it this much more strict would make trade more difficult, damaging the economy. Firstly, before Aikar acts on his pet peeve about political and economic systems, I'd like to point out the first two systems (socialism, communism) are economic systems, and democracy is a political system. They are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, there are external legal restraints and regularized mechanisms of popular control in most countries for a reason. In theory, out of the population of most larger countries, there's a statistical certainty that there is someone amongst them who is responsible enough to be a sensible, effective autocrat, most likely even better than what a democracy could produce. However, the difficulty is in finding this person. And if you find the wrong person, then they run around wild irresponsibly, make unpopular decisions (not just anti-populist stuff, but things which are unfair for the majority of the population), and plunge the country into disaster as unrestricted as the autocrat themself. With respect, autocracy would work with a completely different intelligent species. Just not us. I understand you probably want to help out, but my advice is that you revise your theories.
Seems pretty reasonable....what would you propose as certain things that should be done to create as ideal of a world as us weak humans can produce?
Firstly, don't you dare talk of humanity like that. We are awesome. Do slugs have culture? No. Do ants have technology? No. Do tigers have self-awareness? No. Do rhinos have language? No. Do elephants have philosophy? Yes, they do. I kid, they do not. But guess what single damned cool-as-a-swimming pool species has all that and a whole lot more? If you said 'homo sapiens', then ding ding ding! Winner, winner, chicken dinner, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we are indeed the ultimate superior species in the entirety of the universe. And the universe happens to be huge. The fact that we are superior as a whole species is the first thing we must realise to create an ideal, top-efficiency world. Because we as a species are superior and the most excellent possible organization, it is therefore a logical follow-on that nations divide us. The concept of nations are rooted in tribalistic tendencies of our ancestors; today we must rise above our own neurobiological flaws and wean ourselves off nationalism, except that which can unify us more than it can divide us. To replace nations, I personally advocate world federalism. Nationalism, if it really must be proliferated, can be done so seperate of the state and in an ethical manner. Once a world federation is in place, optimal currencies in optimal currency areas can be implemented, protectionism will become extinct, and the central government of the federation can allocate resources to kickstart economically deprived areas like Africa much more easily. The world's $10 trillion dollars in military spending per year can feed and provide universal healthcare for the entirety of the human species. If we can simply wean ourselves off our tribalistic past, everything else can and will fall into place. I plan to write more about this in a manifesto articulating an overall ideology, with the goal of creating a grassroots new world order inspired by the manifesto which can actually achieve these goals.
I completely agree that we are clearly the dominant race on the planet, be that because of evolution or because God made us that way. What I mean by weak is not inferiority to another species, but a different kind of weakness. In any large scale utopian project, such as the well-developed and very interesting one you propose, the problem will be with the homo sapiens. Even if only one out of a million people decides to break the law, or take over a country, or essentially choose the evil path, whether for selfish ambition, the promise of wealth, or out of a pure desire to hurt other people, the utopian project will fail. People are to easily led down the path of selfishness and evil for a truly peaceful system to exist in this world. That is our unfortunate weakness.
You probably got my entire concept of world peace wrong I actually believe in everything I just stated and in fact it is world peace I'm just not counting those unable to live in it, I can assure you at least 1 billion to 800million will be able to live in it. To make it simple to understand I'm one of those people who believes that what hitler once did was very good for society as an advancement in medicine and science which is what he achieved to do. I'm not saying "Jews should die" I'm just saying that was a very good way of advancing, and no Revising my beliefs is sorta like changing my beliefs, and No Socialism and Communism are "Now" a Economic status, before it was actually a Political status of which Jerusalem, Egypt, Seleucid Empire, Rome, Armenia, between others, Practiced. And before someone pops out with the idea that your professor told you Rome was a "Democracy" it was actually a Communism before ever imagining to start a war against the other Child nations After Alexander The Great died of which made the empire fall of which "Rome" came out from.
