Incendia

Well Americans do elect their politicians in the first place, it's their fault that those terrible politicians are in power. You don't have to change their minds - elect someone who isn't a terrible politician.

I mean't lets see as in lets see if you can find problems with the suggestion. That's exactly what I expected you to do.

Where did you get the idea of me actually trying to get this schedule implemented? I was only suggesting it.

I wasn't planning on testing it. Maybe you'd like to try it.

What you are suggesting is me becoming nocturnal for a week...I'm pretty sure doing that would be in violation of my 'body clock'. It would go against my circadian rhythm, which would probably have negative health effects. (I'm quite sure messing with the circadian rhythm causes jet lag, and may have other negative effects.) My suggestion means keeping within the normal awake in the day, asleep during night cycle that humans have evolved with and naturally follow. Maybe switch back to the current schedule for Friday.

What if the order of time we go to work/school and free time were reserved? Work/School would be at the end of the day, rather than at the beginning. Over-sleeping would cut into your own spare time rather than work/school time, so there would be little excuse for being late. Also, you'd go to sleep soon after you returned home from work/school, and sleep provides good stress relief. I'm pretty sure there is scientific evidence for sleeping after learning helping those learnt things being remembered. Seems like reversing our daily schedules would benefit the economy and intelligence/work capability...or maybe not, let see.

That was my understanding, too. Does the universe need 3 spatial dimensions? (No, but it has them anyway.)

Seems to me that the only benefit to alcohol that you pro-alcohol people are providing is that people can socialise better. Well maybe it's time people learned to talk to each other without having to be drugged and slightly poisoned first. In my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with a society whose members must drug & poison themselves in order to socialise well. Alcohol should be treated as what it is: an addictive, poisonous, drug. All the other addictive drugs were immediately banned once their addictiveness was discovered, and yet nicotine and alcohol remain legal even though it is well known that they are poisonous, and addictive. I'm not calling for an immediate ban on alcohol - that would be too extreme. Alcohol needs to be steadily more and more regulated until it can be banned or until the people using it are using it safely. The dangers of alcohol need to remain an important part of education. Alcohol advertising needs to banned. Tobacco advertising is banned, and alcohol advertising needs to be banned too. Alcohol cans and bottles must have large warning labels which clearly label them as poisonous, harmful substances which can kill. Shock images may need to be used. (As is done with tobacco with pictures of diseased lungs, except it would be diseased livers in the case of alcohol.) Such regulation will make alcohol less attractive and will make alcohol less important to society. Such regulations do work, as has been shown with tobacco. Such regulations on tobacco have lowered use significantly as shown on graph below: ---- To those who say "the poison is in the dosage": Well then, if the poison in the dose, you won't mind drinking this then. It contains cyanide. Don't worry, it's not a fatal dosage.

There are currently 4 known dimensions. The three spatial dimensions and time. I was wondering about the possibility of more than one dimension of time, just as there are more than one dimension of space. I'd be interested in hearing what the members of this forum have to say about this thought. You can speculate about extra dimensions of time yourself if you want.

Nope - doesn't mean I can't think, even if I am wrong. My opinions will probably change in the future when I acquire more knowledge. It would be more helpful to teach me the truth. Pointing out that I know nothing about business isn't helpful. A lazy person in a socialist economy would also get "sacked". The 'you'll lose your job if you are lazy' motivation isn't lost in socialism. Also, surely people prefer being rewarded for work, than being punished for not work. Punishment can cause otherwise lazy people to do the bare minimum in order to be paid. It's not really motivation. Rewards encourage better than minimum work. A combination of both is even better - rewards provide motivation, and punishment discourages laziness.

Why did you ask you biology teacher about the big bang? Surely you should have questioned your physics teacher...or read some books...or at least used the internet to look it up....or a dictionary. Also, theories can be disproved. Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Why?, because poor nations have high death rates and need high birth rates to replenish their population. Nations with high mortality rates (often the poor nations) are likely to be the ones with high fertility rates: World Fertility Rates (Map Above) World Death Rates (Map Above) Notice a correlation?

Market Socialism does function, and does function alongside Capitalist economies because governments don't ban cooperatives. Many of these cooperatives are very good quality and can compete with capitalist enterprises. The reason socialism isn't obvious is because capitalist businesses are so easy to set up (you simply need property to sell, property which makes property which you can sell, or investors for your idea) and vastly more common. They also allow the property owner/dictator-of-the-company(the person who owns the company profits, property, and business(boss)) to hog any profits made. In a cooperative profits are shared and the boss is elected. This incentivises workers because if they do well, the company will do well and they will earn more. The boss is also more likely to be a good boss who the workers like meaning a lower chance of strike action and a decreased need for union. (Democracy in the workplace in better than capitalist dictatorship - just like democracy in a nation is better than a greedy dictatorship.) You don't think laziness exists in Capitalism? It exists in Capitalism as much as it exists in Socialism. Socialism does not need to involve the state at all. State Socialism is not the only form of Socialism - it's simply an anti-market form of socialism. Market Socialism is another form, which is the type I follow. It does not require state-run channels, instead utilising the market to distribute resources. Capitalism is not the most efficient. The most efficient is an economy built entirely on slave labour, in which slaves are treated as machines...to be disposed of when they break and replaced with a new model filled with all the latest employee enhancement, like steroids to make them stronger and glucose/caffeine supplement to give them the energy to work for all day (or night) without stopping. Oh wait, that is a form of capitalism because property remains private and not shared. Of-coarse no one uses that because it would be a terrible thing to do. Capitalism comes in many flavours, as does socialism. What? I don't like in the U.S. (Though I know that Rick Perry doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change.)

I do not advocate the abolishment of individual property. I just favour cooperative. Cooperatives do not denying incentive, all profits generated by the cooperative is shared by the workers rather than going straight to the manger - this actually increases the incentive to do well, because if the company does well you have more pay. (Sharing is good, so why not share you business with your workers? Also I remember reading something in (I think it was) NewScientist which gave reasons for why workers should elect their boss - elected bosses are one of the characteristics of good cooperatives.) I do however feel that the definition of property should be changed to Frederic Bastait's definition: From the Wikipedia page on property: "In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services."" I consider it a better definition to the current one. (It's also compatible with my opinion that ownership, as it is currently defined, is an illusion.)

Why has only Ceti Alpha V posted?There's no point answering the poll if you aren't going to say why that is your opinion, this isn't a discussion if you just answer the poll and decline to post anything.

How about now?

Incorrect. You do not understand liberalism. Please at least read the wikipedia article about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Greetings! I was interested to know what this forum's community thinks of Socialism, so I made this topic to discuss Socialism. As you may (or may not) have noticed from my signature, I am a (Market) Socialist. I simply prefer it to Capitalism, but (unlike many socialists) I am not anti-capitalist. I simply have no reason to be against it. If I had the power I would encourage people to form cooperatives, but I would still allow private enterprise to exist. What is your opinion on socialism? I'm going to make a few points in an attempt to prevent arguments and confusion about certain things...though I doubt that people on this forum will need this. I. There is more that one type of socialism, main different between the three main forms is property policy. II. For a system to be socialist, property in that system must be either commonly owned, socially/cooperatively owned, or publicly owned. Common Property - property owned by everyone. (Property policy of Communism.) Social/Cooperative Property - property which is shared. Social property is owned by the people who use it - an example of social property is a housing Cooperative. (Property Policy of Market Socialism and Syndicalism, the type I support.) Public Property - property owned by the government. (Nationalised stuff) (Property policy of State Socialism and Soviet style socialism.) III. A cooperative is a form of business in which all property of that business belongs to every member of the cooperative, rather than a single CEO or manager or whatever. Cooperative elect their manager. IV. Soviet Union was not entirely Socialist, and is not a good example of a socialist nation because it was corrupt. Corruption is not a cause of socialism itself. Corruption occurs under capitalism too. Soviet Union did practice State Capitalism, where nationalised businesses are run for profit by the government. V. Nazis were not socialist. National Socialism was socialist in name only - just like North Korea is called the Democratic Republic of Korea, when it is quite obviously a dictatorship. Hitler himself expressed regret in calling the system National Socialism. Nazis would kill socialists and communists. VI. All Communists are socialists, not all socialists are Communists.

Liberal in anything means fewer restrictions. A liberal society restricts it's people less than a conservative society. A conservative society tries to preserve the traditions and culture of that society, and is likely to have more restrictions in order to preserve that culture and it's traditions. (Conservatives favour integration over multiculturalism.) Liberalism is often seen as progressive. (Decriminalising drugs, for example.) A liberal economy is one which has fewer restrictions on the economy. I'm not entirely sure about conservative economies, though I'm pretty sure they support protectionism...at-least it seems consistent for them to support protectionism.

I. Because plants contain chlorophyll - and chlorophyll is a pigment which reflects light which we interpret as green, whilst absorbing the light of different wavelengths.II. Why would black be better?

The Greeks separated the mind and soul. The soul was said to be linked to your heart and that is were your emotions lie. That's why some people say things like 'follow your heart'. The way I've always understood it is that the mind and soul a separate entities. I know that Buddhism does not mention the soul, but does instead describes life as energy and that when you die your energy joins the cosmic energy again before being reincarnated. This is probably not true of all forms of Buddhism.

@Brainteaserfan: Actually the bible calls God a he throughout it's entirety, and Adam - the first human - was a male who was made in God's image. Eve, the first woman, was made from Adam's rib and so she is not made in God's image. If you believe the Judeo-Christian book of folklore, then God is male.

My results can be found on this extremely long link: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/bg_final.php?q1=no&q2=no&q3=no&q4=no&q5=no&q6=yes&q7=no&q8=no&q9=no&q10=no&q11=no&q12=no&q13=no&q14=no&q15=no&q16=no&q17=no&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0&hit7=&bullet7=&hit9a=&hit9b=&bullet11=&hit11=&hit12a=&hit12b=&bullet12=&hit13a=&hit13b=&bullet13=&hit14=&bullet14=&hit15a=&hit15b=&bullet15a=&bullet15b=&bullet16=&hit16a=&hit17a=&hit17b=&hit17c=&hit17d=&miss=&newtotal=530702&newhits=727249&newbullets=580095&newh7=10560&newb7=28536&newh9a=4048&newh9b=6435&newh11=24156&newb11=28693&newh12a=30090&newh12b=21812&newb12=43857&newh13a=31045&newh13b=22472&newb13=71916&newh14=171423&newb14=109837&newh15a=54166&newh15b=116774&newb15a=38587&newb15b=38882&newb16=219991&newh16a=54259&newh17a=23227&newh17b=111099&newh17c=30140&newh17d=14727&newmiss=92932&avhonour=8.17&avdistinction=46.07&avservice=37.78&avnone=8.06&avhits=1.37&avbullets=1.09

Maybe it's because most people in America seem to forget that there are more than two parties... Isn't disagreement the entire reason for federalism in the first place?

They were communist as in they had aims of establishing a communist nation (if that's even true, and not just lies and propaganda), but not communist as in actual having achieved the establishment of a communist society. 'My' definition is derived entirely from what is said by the Google Dictionary and Wikipedia.