Ten oz

Evidence regarding the existence of Atlantis would be geological and not non contemporary work of a philosopher referencing a time long ago. In the absence of geoligical evidence contemporary artifacts of art, literature, carpntry, etc produced by those who had lived on Atlantis would be the next best thing. For Jesus the best evidence would be something writen or built carpentry that could be linked to his hands directly or a body/burial site. Next best would be contemporary artifacts of art, literature, carpntry, etc produced by those who had interactions with Jesus. After that any contemporary reference regardless of degrees of separation would be better than nothing at all. In this case, evidence of Jesus, nothing contemporary exists. The New Testement is not contemporary to Jesus and contains no first hand accounts.

Lot leaders around the world who need to be brought to "justice". Why is it the USA's who gets to decide when and on whom "justice" happens? As for sending over spies what happens if and when they are caught. Do we stand by and allow them to be imprisoned indefinitely or executed? How do you know?

Pointless but lucrative. Mixing god and philosophy into any science discussion immediately makes that discussion more accessible to the average person. Scienctology, Astrology, Intelligent Design, Ancient Aliens, and etc are all wildly successful genres of pseudoscience that make those who promote them wealthy.

The question posed by this thread, which I started, isn't a metaphorical one. I am specifically asking about the historicity of Jesus. Proving the historicity of any historical figure requires research, yes.

What actually happened is the only question asked in this thread. I am not aware of any official version which proclaims Jesus to be a creation of Constantine. The Pauline Epistles are the earliest religious works telling the story of Jesus and they date by to 50AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

You open by saying China doesn't believe anything Trump says, if that is the case it contradicts your initial position of "Summon the Chinese ambassador and tell him 5% tariff". If China doesn't believe Trump than what good does it do Trump to threaten them with tariffs? Additionally Trump has already been doing so with no positive result. It is Trump who has changed his position on labeling them a currency manipulator and changing course on Taiwan. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make about the U.N. Security Council or why it would need an exclamation point? The vote for new sanctions was unanimous. North Korea violated an existing agreement.

@StringJunky, I agree that opposing views are good for a discussion. I agree that there is a lot of positive which can come from diverse points of view. However I disagree that one side is never totally wrong or right. Sometimes positions are advocated merely to be contrarian, distract, promote propaganda, or etc. While on the other side something have be empirically proven. I think many people, not necessarily you, are too quick to assume the center between two positions is a safe or fair place to treat as true. People take advantages of that tendency.

Firstly you are ignoring facts. Trump is already threatening tariffs and at levels greater than what you are suggesting and it hasn't changed China's position. Rather it has been Trump's position which has been softening. So your idea has basically already failed. If I stop shopping at a specific retailer they have no comparable response. There can be no tit for tat. A consumer to retailer isn't the same relationship as a superpower to a superpower. It is inherently flawed because in a relationship one should treat another in a similar fashion they wish to be treated. Behaving in any manner other will also lead to friction.

Trump has already threatened tariffs on China of the comical amount of 45% and claimed he'd label them a currency manipulator. While the currency manipulator bit recently stopped his team is still after tariffs as a way to offset the varies tax cuts he is seek for his 2018 budget. It hasn't bent China to its knees. Moreover it is the U.S. consumer who would pay tariffs and the negative impacts would hit both countries. Strong arming China with threats of tariffs is the sort of tactic this thread is about. The notion that the U.S. can use it might (military or economic might) to bully other countries into action is a one way street. If rival countries take an equal approach in response war becomes inevitable. I believe that any international agreement or resolution attempt which only works one way and would lead to war if attempted by both sides is inherently flawed. China as an friend and foe is a very interesting case. In the purist sense of capitalism, which so many in the U.S. claim to applaud, the U.S. has no stronger friend China. Walmart is the U.S.'s largest employer (embarrassingly) with well over 2 million employees. Walmart basically couldn't exist without Chinese goods. China also buys trillions worth of our treasury bonds. Two examples of how economically the U.S.& China are a capitalist match made in heaven. Yet we choose to treat China as a foe out of cold war nostalgia and a sprinkling of eurocentric global manifest destiny. As it relates to North Korea I think we are best just leaving them alone. So long as North Korea's activities are contained within there own borders it is none of our business. It we are concerned about the health of the people there perhaps we should lift a sanction or 2 and allow more food and goods to flow in. Perhaps if the people had a healthier economy with a few more options it would create the sort of shift in world view we are hoping for.

North Korea has a huge military. They have been tightening down the hatches for decades. No round of airstrikes is ending Kim's reign. They have underground shelters. To remove Kim we'd have to put boots on the ground and go in there. Additionally from the moment we start such an endeavor to the moment we capture Kim his military will be attempting to attack us, South Korea, and Japan. This is the major mistake made in Iraq. People thought we could just casually roll in and get Saddam in a few weeks. It simply is never that easy. We are still bombing Afghanistan all these years after 9/11 after all.

Yeah, shame on me for think what the President says is reflective of reality. It is good news, in my opinion, it isn't happening but the rhetoric is still saber-rattling. I can't think of a single good reason for the President to claim he has ordered a Navy armada to the Korean peninsula when in fact he hasn't. It highlights the problem here. Our executive branch is out in public beating the war drum claiming the Navy has been deployed, we are prepared to act alone, peace through strength, and etc meanwhile that same executive branch cannot be trusted with ANYTHING it says.

49% is a smaller porportion than 51% but I doubt anyone here would be okay with 49% of a population being killed over the promise of better conditions for those who remain. It is also wrong to assume only North Korean's would die. U.S. service members and South Koreans would die. In all cases I think the numbers could be higher than what we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraqi. For me,in my opinion, that is not justified. Or we are holding North Korea hostage? NK hasn't attacked anyone. We are considering throwing the first punch here.

How many people are you prepared to see die before you'd change that opinion? It regime change is/were possible without loss of life I would be 100% for it. However, North Korea have a military of 6.5 million and have been preparing for the eventuality you are in favor of for decades. I don't think we'd be doing idea human rights any good in North Korea by killing several hundred thousand North Koreans.

70 million Hindu's in the world might say the same about those who kill cows......ultimately the question here is directed at how to deal with North Korea.

@Velocity_Boy, North Korea hasn't done anything recently which they having done many times over the past couple decade. The sabre rattling here is unfortunately on our (USA) said. Launching a Naval armada to a countries coast while stating we're prepared to act alone and etc has heightened the situation further and faster than neccessary. Kim is bad, I get that. There are many bad leaders in the world. Why this fight and why now? Why not focus on all the indentured servitude or mistreatment of women & homosexuals in Saudi Arabia? I am not saying Kim isn't terrible, I just don't see what makes this the war of choice that must be fought. Countries having mutual financial interests with each other is a positive. We buy Chinese products which means they have a interest in us and vice versa. That goes further towards warding off conflict than carrying a gaint stick everywhere in my opinion.

I don't understand your point about U.S. not being a threat to China anymore? Chinese manufactured products are if your smart phone, computer, car, home, etc, etc I promise you. Where shall we start the purge?

I don't know if that's true or not. The military is 6.5 million people deep. If Kim was wildly unpopular it seems a coup would be possible/inevitable. All it would take is a group of Generals to unite and oust him. At least that is my assumption. China is 1.4 billion people with the fastest growing middle class in the world, 800 million and counting. Simplying labeling them evil, while subsidizing our own (western world) economies with there labor, isn't going to fly. The best way to positively change China for the better is through having a healthy relationship with them.

North Korea has a population of 25 million people and 6.5 million of those people are in the military. With over a quater of the population serving in the military I doubt any grass roots democracy movement would work. Ensuring the regime is the leading industry in the country and the majority of able bodied people are part of the gears that keep the machine turning. I think we are best off focusing on our relationship with China. The better relations we have with China the more willing China will be to check North Korea. I don't think any direct intervention from us (USA) will be successful.

Having WMDs (they didn't) isn't equal military conflict already existing. The issue of Saddam using gas happened before the first Iraq war. As for Afghanistan it was a Al Queda which executed the attacks on 9/11 and the Afghanistan gov't. Most of the attackers on 9/11 were Saidi. Of course OBL was known to be in Afghanistan and the gov't did appear to be protecting him. I think for the most part we agree in any event. "Peace through Strength" is what VP Pence was saying during his recent trip to Asia. Which is exactly the paradox I'm asking about. We (USA) are saying "peace through strength" but if North Korea takes the same position (peace through strength) isn't war inevitable? Seems to me that peace through strength is a very selfish and small way of view international relations because in almost all cases the hope is others won't take the same position. How many of their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, mothers, daughters, and sisters would they lose if we decided to force that transition?

Isn't this true in numerous countries around the world? There are many terrible leaders out there we (USA) could whip of justification for removing. Ultimately what Kim is doing is contained within North Korea's own borders and that I am aware no genocide is taking place. Just a very economically depressed country limping along under a flamboyant dictator/monarch. This is true of Yemen and Syria but I think an argument could be made that such wasn't the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I saw this headline (North Korea Paradox) on the NYT this morning and was reminded of a cartoon about Iran's nuclear program that ran about 10yrs ago. The cartoon was a picture of Uncle Sam wearing a king's crown sitting on a throne made of missiles telling former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was on his knees before the throne, with Uncle Sam saying "don't make the same mistake I made". If not for the military capability North Korea has built up there is a chance the U.S. would have removed their leadership long ago. Yet, if not for the military build up the U.S. may not have paid North Korea any mind. The pardox is that the very activities which are drawing threats from the U.S. are the same activities which protect them from those threats. From Kim Jong Un's point a view a quick look around the world at places like Iraq, Yemen, and Syria the U.S. doesn't hesitate sending in special forces, drones, and jet fighters when a countries defense are weak. We (USA) just casually dropped a 22,000lbs on Afghanistan. One of the things which has kept us out of Iran and is keeping us out of North Korea is that they have WMDs. Obviously there are other factors. Iran is supported by Russia and North Korea is supported by China. If the goal, USA's goal, is to keep WMDs out of the hands of dictators and stymie the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the threat of force the way to do it? If military strength is the asset that allows the U.S. to lead on these matters than isn't military strength the asset others will attempt to emulate? It does seem that once a country succeeds in arming themselves substantially enough, think China & Russia, the threat of preemptive attack is removed. Are we (USA) pushing North Krea is the very direction we insist they don't go?

I apologize for some of the language in the video but comedian Louis CK summed up Trump's lying well while being interviewed on Colbert's late night show:

Trump campaigned he'd repeal the ACA and replace it with something cheaper that covered everyone. Once in office he asked the House to invent something. He didn't actually have a plan or even a rough outline of his own for healthcare. On Syria and ISIS he saidhe had a plan, a plan he wouldn't explain because he didn't want our enemies to know about. Once in office he asked our Generals to come up with something and went from Assad can stay to bombing Syria saying Assad needs to go is a matter of days. Trump never had a plan for dealing with Syria or ISIS. Trump said he would build a big physical wall and that Mexico would pay for the wall. Now in office he is asking Congress for money to pay for the wall and some of it will just be repairs to existing fencing. Trump winging it. He doesn't have any grounded policy plans. His supporters are fine with this because it is about identity politics. They feel real Americans (self proclaimed by so many conservatives) should be the ones to making decisions for better or worse. The "he's one of us" attitude has nothing to be with money. It is about the way conservatives prioritize their cultural values and ideologies over all others. It is about religion, race, and misogyny. That is what makes Trump a "one of us".

You asked for iNow to provide examples of Trump's lies restricting them to "promises" and implying you'd show that it isn't the case, "error of your ways". iNow obliged. You conceded that in fact several of the lies iNow listed were in fact lies. So iNow's point was made and the "error" you referenced is with you and not with iNow. Having already proved their intial statement which you attempted to dismiss why should Inow feel compelled to go line by line? You even jab a bit calling it a "good tactic". The question to you was "How do you feel about his tendency to lie", you already conceded he lies, so why do we need to go lie by lie. You have made the answer to iNow's question obvious.....you don't care about the lying. And that is fine. You are entitled to feel that way but there is no point is beating around the bush about it and wasting others time debating the merits of the varies lies in an attempot to justify your dismissive position.

Science isn't consistent with or in anything but the process of verifying and collecting information. It is motiveless. Science isn't a philosophy it world view. It renders judgement or opinion no strongly that the thermostat in my living room.