Libertus

'Placed on administrative leave'... so now she gets paid AND doesn't have to work. The teacher AND the principal should be fired immediately. No private sector school would ever get away with something like that. And one more thing, how come the lockers don't have locks?

Everything in this reply is correct. Welcome first poster!

It's a coping mechanism. It is also a result of pattern recognition, which is something out brains are good at.

If you keep saing Atheism is a belief, expect to be corrected. You're using the word wrongly. That has everything to do with definition of terms (what do certain words mean) and nothing to do whatsoever with linguistics (the study of human language), you know it, and that's why I think it's intellectually dishonest and frankly insulting to call it linguistics again and again and over again. In any serious discussion among adults, definition of terms has to be agreed upon. You can't have a grown-up discussion with vague wishy washy terms that you can define at will and then expect a meaningful result, or expect not to be called on it. How this conversation looks to me so far: you: "Unicorns exist, they are regular horses. I was riding one last week." me: "But horses don't have horns, they aren't Unicorns" you: "They are just the same, only except for the missing horn! The horn is not essential." me: "Those are just horses. Uni- meaning one, "corn" meaning "horn" (I'm guessing) you: "Linguistics, linguistics, linguistics. Let's keep talking about how I was riding a unicorn last week." Can you see the source of my frustration?

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple. Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty: Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438 Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists." Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747

No, it is in fact not. It's the absence of a belief. The non-acceptance of a proposition.

That is true, and most refreshing! Most people have a problem with labels, they don't want to offend anyone so they don't want to be labeled 'Atheist'. You don't have a problem with that, and I congratulate you for that!

You most definitely are an atheist. Do you believe in a god? If your honest and true answer is anything less than "yes, I do" then you are by definition an a-theist. Which means 'not a theist'. A theist is someone who believes in god. If you're not one of those, or not sure, or not quite sure, or if you just don't know, guess what. You're an atheist. And you're welcome. Examples: "well, maybe there is a god, it could be, I don't know" = atheist. although the question is not what you know, but what you believe. "it's not knowable if there's a god, so I don't know either" = atheist. although the question is not what you know, but what you believe. "it's knowable, but I don't know" = atheist. although the question is not what you know, but what you believe. This is what you'd have to say in order to be a theist (meaning not an atheist) "I don't know, but I believe there is a god" = theist "I know, and I believe there is a god" = theist Analogy: suppose you're sitting in a jury trial, and you find the defendant 'not guilty'. Does that mean he has convinced you of his innocence? Not necessarily. The accusing side has not convinced you that he's guilty, and that's all that is required for you to vote 'not guilty'. There was not enough evidence to prove the defendant guilty. That is sufficient. Do you believe he was innocent? Doesn't matter, and no, not necessarily. You could simply not know whether the defendant was guilty, and that is sufficient to let him go. Even if there is no evidence on either side: "not guilty". Structure: "I don't believe proposition A to be true" is not equal in value to "I believe proposition A to be false". Think about it for a minute. If you can accept that, and the jury example, then try and apply this structure to the term "atheist" and you have a clear definition of what the term means. Another way of putting it: The way the word "atheist" is being used by a lot of people is wrong, they think it means "someone who believes there is no god". While that may be a sufficient condition of being an atheist, it is not a necessary one.

I'm not even sure Ron Paul is personally aware of this - he probably is now... and his legal team's actions are ultimately his responsibility. No question. Violation of trademark should not even be a crime, and he doesn't 'own' the name "Ron Paul" or the computers the DNS tables are stored - he should get involved now and stop all legal actions against these smart and peaceful entrepreneurs who have harmed nobody. In short: government bad, free market good. I learned that from Ron Paul.

Have you tried updog?

What your friends should have pointed out is that nutritional advice for an overweight person trying to lose weight versus a pro athlete would differ greatly in any case. However, there is an overlap, and that is when a pro-bodybuilder is 'cutting', meaning trying to slim down while maintaining muscle strength and definition, he eats less carbs than what he burns up, losing weight in the process. But in any case, you're confusing two different goals in different situations.

I'm by no means an expert on these issues, but I imagine any good advice relies greatly on the details of your situation. How long has this been going on? What State are you in? What does the law say? Do you have joint custody? How many kids, how old are they, etc... Do you have any clue or idea why their mother doesn't want you around the kids? etc... there are countless factors involved.

Apparently, this forums needs 'likes' ...

Yes. and yes. Well, not replace government, but make it obsolete. But, yes.

many more Paul Krugman memes

This is proof that inflation is in fact happening, and significantly larger than what the Fed admits it to be. I just wanted to add my 10 cents to the discussion. Here's a quote from the rapper 50 cents, or, as he's being called in Zimbabwe: 50 Trillion Dollars: "Always have bail money."

That is a great point! I'm glad I asked. It's the same as if a doctor said "we won't remove your tumor, it might grow back".

what's your point, TruthahnDerRuin?

Excellent video and a fair representation of Beck's supposed "libertarianism".

This conversation has been over since the moment you decided not to respond to any of my questions which I copied and pasted into this reply for the 3rd time for your convenience (while your argument is scattered over 3 dozen replies in this 100 answers thread, what a mess. And I'm the one who doesn't understand philosophy... lol - What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on? - Does the validity of your concept of intellectual matter depend on my will, on what I think? - Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, and that it's up to the individual what he believes? - Or does your concept of intellectual matter rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')? - Or do you establish any axioms in order to build up your theory of intellectual matter upon them? It's not just that you haven't answered any of them, you are completely ignoring them. You could have said "these are not valid questions, because of XY" or so. But these are very basic philosophical questions which I would put forward to anyone who plans on establishing a theory that rests on a concept I am not familiar with. So, yeah, I understand you already. Why don't you go sort your stuff out and come back when you have something coherent, or when Kinsella rips you to shreds in his reply, whatever comes first. Have a great day, I enjoyed our back and forth in the beginning when you were cool. Oh and one more thing, what about your point that in a non-disclosure agreement, the subject matter is the human body? Are you still maintaining that? Because I haven't seen you admitting even the slightest error, and this one was a little bigger.

Yeah, that's what you're assuming. Begging the question. If IP is rightly property. Which is the very thing you're trying to prove. It doesn't really make your theory credible if this conclusion is the axiom on which it rests upon. That's begging the question.

What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on? My will? Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, it's up to the individual what he believes? Or does it rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')? Or do you establish axioms? But aren't you assuming that intellectual property must have the same structure as physical property in order to rightfully construct the ground base for IP that way? Isn't that begging the question? You must accept that language has meaning. You cannot argue that language has no meaning, because that statement self-destructs. Well and by ignoring each and every question you are making the point that language has no meaning to you. They are not just funny letters on a screen. - What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on? - Does the validity of your concept of intellectual matter depend on my will, on what I think? - Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, and that it's up to the individual what he believes? - Or does your concept of intellectual matter rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')? - Or do you establish any axioms in order to build up your theory of intellectual matter upon them?

OK, that's a geometrical contradiction. I can't imagine a square circle either. But showing one contradiction I can't think of does not prove that I can't think of any contradiction or believe in two contradicting thoughts. How about this one: 1. Hates big corporation 2. Supports Obamacare which requires everybody to buy insurance from a big corporation But you seem to be missing my main point which is that two contradicting propositions can't be true at the same time. But they can exist* because I can think of both of them (for them to exist* I don't need to believe any of them are true, do I?) *exist, in the let's say, broader sense 1. Unicorns exist 2. Unicorns don't exist Can you think of 1? Can you think of 2? Do you have to believe one of the two to be true in order for the proposition to 'exist'? According to your concept (an actual, completely non-tangible immaterial existence as a thought inside my head) you can.

What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on? My will? Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, it's up to the individual what he believes? Or does it rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')? Or do you establish axioms? But aren't you assuming that intellectual property must have the same structure as physical property in order to rightfully construct the ground base for IP that way? Isn't that begging the question?

Two contradicting statements can't be both true. It has nothing to do with existence. If you believe that these statements, facts, opinions exist at all (I don't use the word 'existence' in that way, but I'll play along), then contradictons exist, too... Because you can hold two contradicting thoughts in your mind at the same time, right? People do it all the time, we call it cognitive dissonance. The concept of a 'contradiction' exists, too (again, not my choice of words), so what makes contradictions different from any other thought? Hm. Let me try again. I think, the concept of contradiction doen't exist, neither do contradicting or non-contradicting thoughts, because thoughts don't exist in a sense that they are not objects in the real world. I use existence strictly in the physical sense, right now. But if you want to say that concepts, thoughts, beliefs, etc.. exist in a sense that people can think them up, then why wouldn't contradictions exist, too? I can hold them in my head. You know, if you use 'existence' in the latter sense, then god does exist, because some people think it does. I don't like the confusion that arises from that lack of distinction.