doG

That's what they don't seem to get. The definitions describe a system that aims to abolish wage labor, private property, etc., not necessarily one that has accomplished that. They want to claim that there have been no communist countries because none of them have passed the goal post they're aiming for.

You miss the point. Someone made a claim that 99.9% of the scientific community believes man causes global warming and I complained about no source to back that assertion up. Then you attempt to do with a link that claims 97-98% of climate scientists believe that. News flash. 97-98% of climate scientists do not represent 99.9% of the scientific community unless all of the scientific community is made up of climate scientists. The assertion is still unsupported and your misleading attempt to claim otherwise is noted.

That's news. By your logic the whole of the scientific community is made up of climate scientists...

No, I said we know the phenomenon exists. Dark energy is a container term we use to discuss what may be the cause of that phenomenon but just because we use the term that way does not mean that dark energy actually exists. There could be some other force causing it and we just happen to call it dark energy. Flexible/floating parameters are really not a good analogy here. The Pantheist will argue that god exists because god is nature, god is everything while the Deist argues that god was simply a supernatural creator and Christians argue that it is an all powerful entity that listens to and answers prayers. These are all different things. The term god itself has become overly broad and vague, rendered meaningless as a descriptive term of anything concise. If god means apple to you and bricks to me then what is the point in you arguing that an apple exists and me countering that bricks exist? If we're to be productive then shouldn't we agree first to debate the existence of apples, or bricks or whatever else?

That's kind of a bad analogy. True communism by Incendia's definition might actually be possible but perpetual-motion based power sources are not.

And there's the very point you're missing about the god argument. Dark energy is a container name for a phenomenon that we KNOW exists. We don't know what it is but we know it exists. It may not be dark energy at all but then again that is just a label for a known phenomenon and that phenomenon has a set of properties the discussion participants agree on. Conversely god arguments involve a term that does not have a consistent definition with any consistent properties. You could replace any "does god exist" argument with any "what is god" argument and until you decide "what" it is your arguing about there's not any point in arguing about its existence. Just consider the range of theists. There are monothesists, pantheists, polytheists, deists, autothesists. With these groups you find more division. Monotheists encompass Christians, Jews, Muslims and some Buddhists and Hindu. There are Pantheists and Panentheists with a division in the belief of the supernatural. How can all these different theists have any meaningful debate on any existence of god(s) when they can't even agree on what the term means? What the term means to each of them if different so while one is arguing about the existence of apples another is arguing about the existence of bricks. It's a pointless and meaningless debate.

It really doesn't matter. The question remains, why do Americans hate communism. The simple answer is that Americans see countries like Cuba and North Korea as examples of the communist ideology and they're own thirst for freedom and liberty causes the oppression in these countries to repulse them. No matter what degree of communism has been achieved in these nations according to your opinion it is the perception of the Americans view of communism that is the topic here. Believe what you want but the bottom line is question asked, question answered.

So 99.9% the scientific community thinks man is not polluting his environment? I'd like to see some reference to support that claim. Or maybe you meant only 0.1% of the scientific community thinks it is debatable that man's effect on climate change is significant and the other 99.9% consider it a fact? Even the neverending debate in this forum shows that claim to be false? Can you show a reference that supports your claimed 999 to 1 ratio in either vein or did you just make that number up out of thin air?

They've fulfilled someone's definition or sources wouldn't be listing them as communist states ruled by communist parties. Then again, is it really that black and white with no shades of gray. Googling "define: communism" shows variation across sources in the very definition itself. This makes sense with the variety of communists there are: council communists, non-Marxist libertarian communists, anarcho-communists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. Then again, what's the point? You've not backed up any of your claims. I guess you think we're just supposed to take your word for it because you say so.

Wrong about what? That you need to define what you're arguing about before arguing about it?

Oh, now you're claiming dark matter has nothing to do with dark energy. You need to try arguing that point over in the physics forum.

Why can't anyone with claims that there have been no communist states provide even one link to support their assertions? I tell you why, because they're wrong and they can'y support their claims with any authoritative references.

According to who? you? Even the CIA World Factbook lists these countries as communist states. The claims that there have been no communist countries just don't hold up.

You're missing my point. The contribution of man to climate change is debatable and that we should do something about it for THAT reason is debatable too. OTOH, that fact that man is polluting his environment is NOT debatable, it's a fact. Because of that more people will be willing to participate in discussion on what to do about it instead of arguing whether or not it contributes to climate change. Simply changing the REASON we should do something about it should get more people interested in taking action if the reason is one that more people agree with. IMO you will find more people that agree we're polluting the environment than you will that we are causing climate change. That's a win for the debate on emissions.

No, what I'm saying is that god must be a coherently defined term in order to argue about it. What is the point in 2 people arguing about the existence of god when they each have their own definition of god? If you're going to argue about the existence of something, anything, then you first need to agree on what that something is or the argument of existence is meaningless. Strawman, not the same at all. We know that there exists some matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation and we lump it into a container term as dark matter for the purpose of discussing what it is. We do know that it exists.

It also demonstrates how political threads get started in Off Topics forums and discussed outside the area where some people are banned. You might as well let them back in the politics forum so threads like this don't go off topic

Climate change will occur without any humans at all. You could kill all of us an the Earth would still warm up to its historical average global temperature. earth is a tropical planet and it's not the existence of humans that make it so. OTOH, man is a nasty creature polluting the he11 out of his own environment. That IS something we should do something about, not because it might contribute to climate change, but because it is a nasty existence. We're pissing in our own bath water I do agree that man should indulge in looking at what population the resources of this planet can support. At some point we will exceed it, if we haven't already, and the quality of life will be a downhill slide for all of us.

http://geography.about.com/od/lists/tp/communistcountries.htm

There have been no successful communist countries. Nearly all have become totalitarian in the long run. I would theorize that in most cases communism leads to oppression. Why would anyone like that?

Taps come in different size classes or tolerances. If you thread the smaller piece at the maximum thread diameter, tap the whole at a minimum and force the too pieces together you will effectively get a friction weld in the joint that will permanently join the 2 pieces.

Where did that happen? Somebody here started a thread on terrorism and you hijacked it with another topic and ostracized them for posting about terrorism. That is off topic and not conducive to the discussion raised in the OP for this thread! Why don't you start a thread on dying children if that's what you'd like to discuss instead of trying to steer another's that way? Wouldn't that be more productive for both topics than trying to imply my-concerns-are-more-important-than-yours tactics?

A coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, then the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.

Do you tacitly condone terrorism because children are dying of diseases and malnutrition? What exactly is the point of ostracizing anyone for complaining about terrorism? Is that where your priorities lie?

I tend to disagree when the author also participates in the discussion. IMO, the best moderation comes from someone who is not a participant in the debate and debate is really what most political discussion is. Could you really imagine a genuine debate between Obama and Bush with either of them being the moderator of the debate as well? P.S. Hello everyone. Glad to see the place is still here.

Wow, this looks like Scientology spam!