zapatos

Can you give me a source for your statements that "Indirect democracies are not really democracies at all.", and " the U.S. is ... not a democracy"? I keep running into definitions of democracy, and examples of democracies, that say otherwise. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

From your link: First, this is the definition for 'pure democracy', not 'true democracy'. Second, nowhere does this definition say "every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls". Third, if this is the definition you are using, then you are indeed trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracy as I pointed out in my previous post. And if it is an example of successful direct democracy you are looking for, how about Town Meeting Day in Vermont? http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html

That seems to me a ridiculous definition of 'true democracy'. For example, under your definition of true democracy, before I can pick up a jar of peanut butter at the store, my whole family has to go to the polls and vote on whether the peanut butter should be chunky or smooth. But if that is the case, then I say that any time you have a single person living in isolation, you have a true democracy. It looks to me like you are trying to make a distinction between direct- and indirect democracies.

US, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Iceland, Britain, Canada...

I'm trying to see things from your perspective, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

If you don't mind me asking, have you found support for your theory elsewhere? Are you reevaluating your theory in light of the responses and suggestions you've received on this forum?

"I'd give my left arm to be ambidexterous!" "You can observe a lot by watching." "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." -Yogi Berra

I believe one of the main reasons they wanted to create the virus is so they can quickly identify when this is happening naturally. Recognizing a new virus that is potentially devastating prior to its wide spread could save many lives. I don't see the link between the two. Can you expand on this a bit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/health/fearing-terrorism-us-asks-journals-to-censor-articles-on-virus.html

I believe that rather than all particles receding from each other, you would have superclusters receding from each other. Dark energy is not strong enough to break apart gravitationally bound systems (or rocks).

Ok, I get it. So from a practical standpoint, how should I deal with the risk of unintentionally insulting people when comparing them to others? Obviously if I know my audience well I don't much risk comparing them to someone they dislike. And it's probably low risk comparing people to famous singers or athletes, but maybe a good rule of thumb is to not compare someone to a religious figure (or politician, for that matter) unless I know them well. Or to get to the point you were making, maybe I should just say they sing well and leave it at that.

Not at all, but I guess I am. Let me try again. When commenting on someone's singing, is being called Sinatra-like not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment?

Is your objection that you are compared to Christ, or that you are compared at all. For example, if I said you made pie as good as my wife does, or your singing reminds me of Sinatra, would that be objectionable? If singing is a big part of my life I think high praise would be to compare you to someone I thought highly of. Are comparisons to religious figures different than comparisons to other figures?

I drink a reposado called 1921. Very nice. It is not the one I get drunk on though because I wouldn't waste it by shooting it, and it costs too much to drink too much of at once.

Because I know it is good for me I tend toward lean meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, non-fat dairy, beans, small amounts of nuts, and healthy fats. I don't buy organic or avoid salt and sugar. My water comes from the tap. I don't take vitamins. I drink alcohol, usually Johnnie Walker Black scotch or Old Bushmills Irish whiskey, and beer. Most of my worst drunks have involved tequila. I don't drink much wine, and will try any food or drink. And most important, I never let a good diet get in the way of good food, no matter how bad it is for me.

Yeah, it may be an emergent property of religion, but I've always thought it was probably an emergent property of people. I know this is anecdotal, but over time I've found that the groups of people I've thought highly of for one reason or another, all turn out to be just about like any other group. It seems all groups have a similar percentages of people who are nice, smart, jerks, arrogant, helpful, etc. At first I was shocked when I heard priests had molested so many boys, thinking there should not be many people like that in the priesthood. Then it seemed like every other priest was involved. Finally I heard that the percentage of priests molesting boys was roughly the same as the percentage of people molesting children in the general population. I'd guess it would be the same for other attributes as well. If an evangelical today who thought only his type of person would go to heaven was suddenly sent to 1930's Germany, he would probably make a great Aryan. That is, he would express his high esteem for his group, whether his group happened to be religious or of some other type.

I too think it is acceptable. Who is the arrogant and ignorant one who said otherwise? I said it was ironic that one group would deny the other, then benefit from the others fruits. Just as you did. In what religion can you walk on water and move mountains if you are a true believer? And again, can you tell me where in the bible it says you cannot or should not utilize engineering and math to get you to your point of interest? Thank you for your advice on how I should behave myself spiritually. Any comments on how I raise my children? What religion are you talking about?!? So in your mind it is ironic that theists utilize the work of atheists, but not ironic that atheists utilize the work of theists. How ironic...

Ha! That is great!

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

By definition. If it wasn't nearly round it wouldn't be called a planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Well thank you for that massive generalization. But somehow I'm having a tough time figuring out when my grandmother had time to be evil when she was so busy with her charitable work. Can you be more specific about what evil traits she has? Yeah, I feel the same way about the non-religious who utilize many of the religious based food pantries or charity hospitals. Can you give me the biblical context that says it is wrong to use technology?

Would it be harder than it is for indigenous populations in the Arctic?

As I don't wish to see you languish in your ignorance and I feel you would like to know, I have to tell you. For someone who is so easily offended, your approach to others is often offensive. I say this in the hope you may rethink things. Your choice.

Please, don't stop there. By all means let me know what other faults I perhaps have. But I am motivated by your example of taking it upon yourself to speak your mind. From now on, when my wife asks what I think about an outfit she put together to wear, I am not going to limit my comments to practical aspects regarding how the shoes don't match the purse. I am going to give her the straight story -- she needs to stop deluding herself about her fashion sense, and the best thing that will come of that outfit is that it will give others a good laugh. In fact, I'll be sure to tell strangers what I think, too. And why limit my comments to what they've asked about? Surely they'll also be interested in my opinion of their personal failings.

I can see that your post applied to the sentence "Your theory is invalidated by evidence." Was all the rest (grow up--ignorant and foolish--your ideas give a good laugh--self deception) part of science?