Fb
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
276 comments displayed.
#19
-
epicextreme (10/18/2015) [-] 
I would pay double my tax if I knew all of it was going towards space exploration.
#131 to #19
-
thepizzadevourer (10/18/2015) [-] Well, I mean, you can take whatever you pay in taxes this year and donate an equal amount directly to NASA . . .
#256 to #239
-
failtolawl (10/19/2015) [-] yea but Canada isn't doing much for any Mars colonization tho.
#89 to #78
-
runescapewasgood (10/18/2015) [-] quit after eoc and made this fj acc,then came back to oldschool, got up to 500m staking, felt like i beat the game, lost the 500m then quit.
started 10 yrs ago, ended a few months ago and loved every second of the ride (now that i look back on it at least)
started 10 yrs ago, ended a few months ago and loved every second of the ride (now that i look back on it at least)
#104 to #103
-
runescapewasgood (10/18/2015) [-] i decided to risk it all and lost hehe. people were urging me to sell what i gained, but i decided against it. i still probably have a few mil lying around in mems items, but im not a member anymore
#105 to #104
-
countmorgan (10/18/2015) [-] im mostly askin if we could work something out mind if i check it out?
#351 to #255
-
countmorgan (10/20/2015) [-] oh i already have enough gp but whats the hurt in having more.
#110 to #21
-
Indoknight (10/18/2015) [-] Not only that but if you have a copy of the receipt of the donation, you can claim that as a deductible on your taxes. So technically, you can pay all a lot of your taxes solely to NASA.
#277 to #270
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-] Bitch, please: /Thumbing+now+briefly+shows+john+cena/hdgifs/5690919/9
#211 to #5
-
darkbringer (10/19/2015) [-] **darkbringer used "*roll picture*"**
**darkbringer rolled image** The roll gods smile upon you, lucky human.
**darkbringer rolled image** The roll gods smile upon you, lucky human.
#90 to #7
-
anonymoussarcasm (10/18/2015) [-] Might as well try to roll dubs and see if I get some residual luck from you.
**anonymoussarcasm used "*roll 1, 1-99*"**
**anonymoussarcasm rolls 01**
**anonymoussarcasm used "*roll 1, 1-99*"**
**anonymoussarcasm rolls 01**
#112 to #90
-
stonetomcat (10/18/2015) [-] **stonetomcat used "*roll 1, 0-99*"**
**stonetomcat rolls 11**
**stonetomcat rolls 11**
#8
-
thatguyyoumightno (10/18/2015) [-] actually, the mars rover is helping us down on earth.
with the data they find through the rover, NASA can start to make a colony on mars that will allow me to get as ******* FAR AWAY FROM THESE RETARDS AS POSSIBLE.
with the data they find through the rover, NASA can start to make a colony on mars that will allow me to get as ******* FAR AWAY FROM THESE RETARDS AS POSSIBLE.
#254 to #8
-
doughnutholer (10/19/2015) [-] The day any kind of city on Mars is put up we (and our great great great grand children) would be long dead
#30 to #8
-
anon (10/18/2015) [-]
sorry after the test mice test if mars is colonizable, only the super wealthy will ever get to mars. ironic that you think you aren't the retard, when you compare yourself to the super rich and wealthy who can afford to actually influence the world, you assume you'll get a place in mars because you're special.
tl;dr you're the retard yet you don't know it, snowflake
we are all retards and its okay man
tl;dr you're the retard yet you don't know it, snowflake
we are all retards and its okay man
#53 to #30
-
anon (10/18/2015) [-]
But WHY would the wealthy want to go to Mars? On Mars, they have no power whatsoever - on the contrary, they're completely at the mercy of the whims of NASA and the US Government, the exact OPPOSITE of what they have on Earth. The people who would WANT to go to Mars would be those who have nothing to lose tl;dr Mars will basically become Australia on a planetary scale
#115 to #53
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] to establish a colony, and run it like a king.. maybee? the people who are goin to live on mars are going to be the one WHO CAN ACTUALLY SURVIVE LIVING ON MARS. the rich would have it easy on mars dude... without a lot of the ******** they have here on earth... they would live like kings
#126 to #115
-
shieeetposter (10/18/2015) [-] You know how the colonies worked in the Americas? You work. You build it up. Same will happen for interplanetary colonies.
Go back to middle school, you got some learning to do.
Go back to middle school, you got some learning to do.
#128 to #126
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] except its not in collony on earth.. where we have been living for past couple thousand years... yea lets get some average ************* to live on another planet... and you know, lets just let them work and build it up, we can trust em, they wont get themselves killed and waste billions of dollars, or try to rebbel.. (exxcept this rebelion would fail... cuz they kinda need support from earth)...
and you know what, im kinda dumb, so i dont realy get what your trying to say... like, how can you compare the colonies of a planet we are currently accustomed to, to living on to another ******* planet...
clearly you have some thinking to do pepe.
and you know what, im kinda dumb, so i dont realy get what your trying to say... like, how can you compare the colonies of a planet we are currently accustomed to, to living on to another ******* planet...
clearly you have some thinking to do pepe.
#129 to #128
-
shieeetposter (10/18/2015) [-] Education = application. Clearly you don't have any of that.
It's not they will magically place a city on Mars with a working economy. It's not going to be the same as Earth, but the same principles apply. The colonists build the foundation. They get materials from then on and build it up. It's such a simple concept, and it took like 4 sentences to sum it up. Go ahead and come up with a counter arguement, I'm not going to read it because obviously you're so ******* retarded.
TL;DR for such a small paragraph: you don't put colonists in a colony. You get people there to set up and build things up from there. Also, get a better ******* education and better comebacks.
It's not they will magically place a city on Mars with a working economy. It's not going to be the same as Earth, but the same principles apply. The colonists build the foundation. They get materials from then on and build it up. It's such a simple concept, and it took like 4 sentences to sum it up. Go ahead and come up with a counter arguement, I'm not going to read it because obviously you're so ******* retarded.
TL;DR for such a small paragraph: you don't put colonists in a colony. You get people there to set up and build things up from there. Also, get a better ******* education and better comebacks.
#144 to #129
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] well i would need education on how we would ever build colonies and sustain those colonies on mars.. i dont think there is anything but ******** theories on that, so you got me there smart guy. were talking about hypothetical situations here so everything were talking about is up for debate becuased theirs realy no real info about it.
i know they wont place a magical city on mars.. it will probbably take a couple 100 years before we get anything substansial on mars going... thats actualy what im trying to say.. you start small.. but its going to be done with people who are intellegent, and can run the facilities without killing themselves, or damaging those facilities.... so im prety sure its not the ******* same yo. its not that complicated to grasp that we will need able people and wealthy people to run a colony on mars.. we may not need the wealthy person to be there, but he sure as hell is going to want a nice place for himself up there.
and you can stop making fun of my intellegence, i already told you i was retarded... im not trying to comeback at you so much as i dont understand, what your not getting about the fact that this is completely different from an earth cololny.
and its ok if you dont read this.. its gunna poke you anyways
i know they wont place a magical city on mars.. it will probbably take a couple 100 years before we get anything substansial on mars going... thats actualy what im trying to say.. you start small.. but its going to be done with people who are intellegent, and can run the facilities without killing themselves, or damaging those facilities.... so im prety sure its not the ******* same yo. its not that complicated to grasp that we will need able people and wealthy people to run a colony on mars.. we may not need the wealthy person to be there, but he sure as hell is going to want a nice place for himself up there.
and you can stop making fun of my intellegence, i already told you i was retarded... im not trying to comeback at you so much as i dont understand, what your not getting about the fact that this is completely different from an earth cololny.
and its ok if you dont read this.. its gunna poke you anyways
#156 to #144
-
shieeetposter (10/18/2015) [-] Your ******* point was the rich people would want to go there because they will have it easy. Don't know what kind of drugs you are on. Nice job changing your point, faggot.
#179 to #156
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-] they will have it easy, they will save the best facilities for themselves and have intelligent people to run it for them.. while they sit back and look at the sun, and overwatch the colony..... agin... not complicated... if you were rich, and were funding such a colony, wouldn't you want your own spot? of course this is all asuming that thier is something on mars worth colonizing.. if their isnt anything but free space to house people.. then we wont have colonies on mars... we will have developed technology to a point where we could launch prefabricated facilites to mars that the common folk could live and sustain themselves there... in wich case the rich people would have the dopest pent houses of all.
but alas, this is all hypothetical nonsense.. thanks for the internets anyways bro.. it was fun
but alas, this is all hypothetical nonsense.. thanks for the internets anyways bro.. it was fun
#244 to #128
-
rockerforlife (10/19/2015) [-] hey that bitchtits shieeetposter blocked me, so here's my reply
you're right but the wealthy people that bought land there did run it
the british basically saw the colonies as plantations and let landowners do *******
landowners hired indentured servants and slaves and they could say what religion could be practiced. they established legislatures and passed laws and the only thing that the british government did about it was tax them on international trade.
so the dude's right, wealthy people COULD run it like kings and they could buy a cheap laborforce to do all the work.
wow r00d
you're right but the wealthy people that bought land there did run it
the british basically saw the colonies as plantations and let landowners do *******
landowners hired indentured servants and slaves and they could say what religion could be practiced. they established legislatures and passed laws and the only thing that the british government did about it was tax them on international trade.
so the dude's right, wealthy people COULD run it like kings and they could buy a cheap laborforce to do all the work.
wow r00d
#241 to #126
-
rockerforlife (10/19/2015) [-] nooooooooo
that's not how it worked in America.
They DID establish their own government and basically ruled like kings.
that's not how it worked in America.
They DID establish their own government and basically ruled like kings.
#242 to #241
-
shieeetposter (10/19/2015) [-] First of all: not everyone ran the government.
Second of all: there had to be a workforce
Third: **** off I don't want anything else to do with this thread
Second of all: there had to be a workforce
Third: **** off I don't want anything else to do with this thread
#117 to #68
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] except they will probably halve multibillion dollar facilities that they will live in, that are dope as **** , but the commoners of mars will get the typical space huts that suck. why wouldn't a rich person want to live on mars? they would be able to travel back and forth pretty easily at the point where we have the technology to live there.
#130 to #117
-
anon (10/18/2015) [-]
that's not how it works you ******* retard. NASA doesnt randomly place "dope" houses on Mars. someone has to build them. Obviously rich people arent going to pay NASA to build **** . if anything, people want to get paid, or at least have a chance to ditch their ******** econony, I.e. poor ***** from India ot something.
#thinkB4uspeak
#thinkB4uspeak
#133 to #130
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] so your going to send uneducated people to run multibillion dollar facilities? it might just be a little hut.. but Muhammad from India could very well **** it it up.. so you would need people who were capable of living on a new planet, as well as rich people to fund it.. cuz nasa is not going to pay for that **** ... they have been slowly reducing their involvement in the space program for a while now, and have been giving it over to rich entrepreneurs. so im guessing those rich entrepreneurs that fund the colonies are going to want to have dope houses made for themselves, when they decide to visit thier colonies... i dont know.. maybee its not how it works for colonies on earth, but were talking about another planet here. its kinda..... different... ya know?
#168 to #155
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-] sherlock holmes over here.. stating that you dont have to be rich be educated,... all im saying is that the people who will be living on mars will be educated and most likely not poor, namely because they got off their ass and got an education and are no longer poor or at least aren't retarded... but sadly, most poor people aren't educated, and lack the skills to go to mars. ur gunna need highly trained persons to do this, and they will need to show that they can learn *cough* college degree *cough* before they ever even get put behind the wheel..... sorry anon.. thats the way it goes. you remember the astronauts right? were they from india?
oh and captain obvious over, stating that rich people aren't always entrepreneurs. well slap my ass and call me martha. your right. lets get julio the mexican restaurant owner and have him fund the mars colonization because hes an entrepreneur and totaly qualifies to do it.... breh.. i dint say rich people... i said rich entrepreneurs. which means people with a lot of money who are also willing to fund a new concept like colonizing mars.
this isnt brain surgery anon...
oh and captain obvious over, stating that rich people aren't always entrepreneurs. well slap my ass and call me martha. your right. lets get julio the mexican restaurant owner and have him fund the mars colonization because hes an entrepreneur and totaly qualifies to do it.... breh.. i dint say rich people... i said rich entrepreneurs. which means people with a lot of money who are also willing to fund a new concept like colonizing mars.
this isnt brain surgery anon...
#181 to #169
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-] i would imagine bro... its another planet you know?
#47 to #30
-
thesovereigngrave (10/18/2015) [-] Why the **** would the super wealthy even want to go to Mars? They have it pretty great down here on Earth, and there's no chance of them dying without any chance of help because they're on a completely different planet.
#207 to #30
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] Throughout human history, we see time and time again that the people who are colonizing are the ones seeking better opportunities or who are escaping something (like religious persecution).
Those are the people who will go. They won't be the poorest necessarily, but they will be the people who feel like they're going nowhere in life.
Them, and the people looking for adventure.
Those are the people who will go. They won't be the poorest necessarily, but they will be the people who feel like they're going nowhere in life.
Them, and the people looking for adventure.
#134 to #30
-
thevaulthunter (10/18/2015) [-] You dense ******* , the goal is to prepare Mars for an entire population, not just the rich.
#278 to #30
-
amuzen ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-]
It's not a vacation home, the super wealthy never colonize anything because it's hard ******* work where you have to give up everything in order to do it. There's a reason the aristocracy stayed in England during the colonial periods. The only people who would go on a mars colonization expedition are people who are so enamored with the idea of life on mar's they're willing to give up their old life on earth entirely because there really won't be any going back. No mars isn't going to the wealthy, it's going to the determined just like everywhere else has.
#113 to #30
-
failijaili ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] hey.. he said that we are all retards and that is ok.. wich is true so stop thumbing him like that you *************
#71 to #8
-
yourinvisiblegf (10/18/2015) [-] > implying you'll be part of those "clever" enough to go to Mars
#22 to #17
-
anarchyamongants (10/18/2015) [-] I don't want their filthy feet on my beautiful red desert. Can we send them to Venus instead?
#111 to #22
-
thesoulseeker (10/18/2015) [-] Sure go to Venus. I hear the weather there is great. The atmospheric pressure is only about 90 times bigger than on earth, plus you get wonderful acid rains all the time. Did I mention the mild 450 or so C surface temperature?
#185 to #111
-
anarchyamongants (10/19/2015) [-] Perfect! The people we send there don't need to know about all that.
#215 to #8
-
makethingsworse (10/19/2015) [-] Solid use of caps lock. Excellent delivery. Superb build-up. Zero fat on joke.
10/10 would raff once more.
10/10 would raff once more.
#66 to #8
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] >be you
>2025
>feminists move to mars, rename mars to venus to be more inclusive
>you are now stuck with them forever.
>2025
>feminists move to mars, rename mars to venus to be more inclusive
>you are now stuck with them forever.
#75 to #66
-
greyhoundfd (10/18/2015) [-] In order to make Mars survivable you would have to constantly work hard. Feminists don't want to work hard, so they would either be overcome by angry working-class people, or they would die.
#27 to #8
-
fourtunehunters (10/18/2015) [-] Coming soon to a red planet near you, MarsBook! The Facebook of Mars!
#42 to #40
-
thickfingers (10/18/2015) [-] No, it's something practiced by the Catholic church 500 years ago, as a way of buying your way into heaven. But you're completely right themaaster. All the churches get is from donations, which will all be put to good use in maintaining the church and feeding the homeless.
I do enjoy a little red pinkies, and it's what I expect given the high conenctration of fedora neckbeards on this site.
I do enjoy a little red pinkies, and it's what I expect given the high conenctration of fedora neckbeards on this site.
#72 to #42
-
meganinja (10/18/2015) [-] No you're thinking of indulgences, like anon said.
But yes, most churches put their money towards property upkeep, building maintainance, paying the workers, and use what's left over for charity. Not all that many churches are all that crooked.
And even if you did tax them on what they made through donations, most of them donate so much money back that you would hardly be collecting any more taxes.
But yes, most churches put their money towards property upkeep, building maintainance, paying the workers, and use what's left over for charity. Not all that many churches are all that crooked.
And even if you did tax them on what they made through donations, most of them donate so much money back that you would hardly be collecting any more taxes.
#45 to #33
-
robinwilliamson (10/18/2015) [-] You should try driving around Houston. There's like 30 megachurches in Houston. It's also where Joel Osteen lives. He charges like 15-30 bucks a seat. You need tickets for some of these guys, because it's become a product to people. It's very much a for-profit business for these ******** of private-jet flying, $2,000 suit wearing, Cadillac Escalade driving "pastors".
#50 to #45
-
themaaster (10/18/2015) [-] Now those assholes do need to be taxed. But I wouldn't call them pastors or megachurches of that type a proper church.
#101 to #50
-
nimba (10/18/2015) [-] the problem is that the US is constitutionally unable to decide whether any church is a 'real' church - freedom of religion, seperation of church and state and whatnot so any organisation that can tick the boxes of church can be tax free. John Oliver started his own church just by using his TV audience and studio as a church.
#86 to #67
-
anon (10/18/2015) [-]
So what? You pay for a bunch of **** with taxes that you will never use. I don't know how it is up there, but in Massachussetts the best schools are private Catholic institutions. I would happily pay taxes to improve people's education over a ton of other things. You don't recieve money from the social programs you pay for, you don't use many of the roads you pay for, you don't personally use the military ordinance you pay for, etc.
#37 to #35
-
innocentbabies (10/18/2015) [-] I didn't recognize it, I just clicked the link that comes up when you roll an image. Although, I think people would have less trouble recognizing you as a guy if you'd cut your hair, not paint your fingernails, and dress in shirts that are supported by more than just straps.
Of course, it doesn't bother me any, just pointing that out if it's bothering you.
I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Click to show spoiler
Of course, it doesn't bother me any, just pointing that out if it's bothering you.
I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.
#295 to #294
-
deliciousdee ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-] Understandable. The one time I had to put on makeup was a nightmare.
#327 to #326
-
greekrascal (10/19/2015) [-] My boyfriend gave it to me and it keeps my neck nice an toasty.
#246 to #29
-
teepoteater (10/19/2015) [-] Some lady on my Facebook feed posted this a while ago when the rover first landed. I laughed because she's one of those welfare leeches who has a million and one kids to fatten her government check.
#283 to #258
-
enlightednatzie (10/19/2015) [-] I hate the fact that these clubs for celebrating your imaginary frineds ar not taxed. Churches serves no real purpose at all and should therefore be taxed the hell out, like your everyday average joe.
#96 to #29
-
brutalviking (10/18/2015) [-] why not help people with your own hands and effort, instead of handing them some money and feel better about yourself?
#148 to #96
-
overlordnick (10/18/2015) [-] Depending on what it's for there's really nothing you can do, or the people could do better with just money than anything you do for them.
Nasa for example, what could you possibly do if you aren't an experienced scientist/engineer?
Insert disease here, there's not much you can do besides funding research/ helping fund treatment. You could do something to increase awareness, but that has limited helpfulness, there have been plenty of things that everyone talked about for a bit but nothing was ever done about.
Something interesting to check out is part of the pilot of "Adam ruins everything" It's reuploaded on youtube, but it's low resolution and slowed down to avoid being taken down
Nasa for example, what could you possibly do if you aren't an experienced scientist/engineer?
Insert disease here, there's not much you can do besides funding research/ helping fund treatment. You could do something to increase awareness, but that has limited helpfulness, there have been plenty of things that everyone talked about for a bit but nothing was ever done about.
Something interesting to check out is part of the pilot of "Adam ruins everything" It's reuploaded on youtube, but it's low resolution and slowed down to avoid being taken down
#118
-
anon (10/18/2015) [-]
Except that if you're going to go around preaching separation of church and state, you can't just change your mind and then tax the Church.
If you insist on treating the Church like a business, let them lobby your politicians like other businesses. Let them get involved with politics like other businesses do.
It's only fair.
If you insist on treating the Church like a business, let them lobby your politicians like other businesses. Let them get involved with politics like other businesses do.
It's only fair.
#165 to #118
-
justtocomment (10/18/2015) [-]
You're putting words in the poster's mouth.
He never said anything about the separation of church and state.
And if you think the church doesn't already have lobbyists, and political figures begging for their support, you clearly haven't heard more than two words out of a Republican candidate's mouth.
If religion is the reason gay marriage took so ******* long, abortion is STILL on the table, and tax exemption extends to pastors and their cash-cows - exactly how separate are church and state?
He never said anything about the separation of church and state.
And if you think the church doesn't already have lobbyists, and political figures begging for their support, you clearly haven't heard more than two words out of a Republican candidate's mouth.
If religion is the reason gay marriage took so ******* long, abortion is STILL on the table, and tax exemption extends to pastors and their cash-cows - exactly how separate are church and state?
#175 to #173
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Only religious people believe a mass of cells is a baby.
Scientifically speaking, it's not. Literally, a fetus and an infant are two totally different things. And that's if it even reaches the point of being a fetus, and not just a bundle of cells.
Scientifically speaking, it's not. Literally, a fetus and an infant are two totally different things. And that's if it even reaches the point of being a fetus, and not just a bundle of cells.
#252 to #175
-
badsamaritan ONLINE (10/19/2015) [-] I guess im the one non religious person that believes abortion is immoral
#315 to #252
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
No, there are plenty of people who can somehow differentiate between cells and babies, but still insist they are equal in their rights.
#187 to #180
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
And if you believe abortions kill babies, you might as well say condoms and blowjobs do as well because cells aren't babies.
Want me to prove it? Say you're in a burning house. At one end of the house is a baby crying in a cradle. At the other end is a fetus in a test tube or a 1st trimester bundle of cells in a petri dish. You have time to save one, and only one. Unless your answer is "I could never make the decision, there is no way I could save that crying baby and leave that undeveloped fetus to die" then you recognize there is a difference between a baby and a fetus, and as such can't claim abortion is killing actual babies when all it kills is fetuses.
Want me to prove it? Say you're in a burning house. At one end of the house is a baby crying in a cradle. At the other end is a fetus in a test tube or a 1st trimester bundle of cells in a petri dish. You have time to save one, and only one. Unless your answer is "I could never make the decision, there is no way I could save that crying baby and leave that undeveloped fetus to die" then you recognize there is a difference between a baby and a fetus, and as such can't claim abortion is killing actual babies when all it kills is fetuses.
#208 to #187
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] >And if you believe abortions kill babies, you might as well say condoms and blowjobs do as well because cells aren't babies.
Those things aren't at all equivalent.
> Say you're in a burning house. At one end of the house is a baby crying in a cradle. At the other end is a fetus in a test tube or a 1st trimester bundle of cells in a petri dish. You have time to save one, and only one. Unless your answer is "I could never make the decision, there is no way I could save that crying baby and leave that undeveloped fetus to die" then you recognize there is a difference between a baby and a fetus, and as such can't claim abortion is killing actual babies when all it kills is fetuses.
No one's saying they're the same. What some people are saying is that they think it's wrong to destroy human life before its birth.
Using your logic, women and children into lifeboats before men is saying that men are less than women and children.
Those things aren't at all equivalent.
> Say you're in a burning house. At one end of the house is a baby crying in a cradle. At the other end is a fetus in a test tube or a 1st trimester bundle of cells in a petri dish. You have time to save one, and only one. Unless your answer is "I could never make the decision, there is no way I could save that crying baby and leave that undeveloped fetus to die" then you recognize there is a difference between a baby and a fetus, and as such can't claim abortion is killing actual babies when all it kills is fetuses.
No one's saying they're the same. What some people are saying is that they think it's wrong to destroy human life before its birth.
Using your logic, women and children into lifeboats before men is saying that men are less than women and children.
#314 to #208
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
> not at all the same
Bunches of cells that, given the right care, could become children are being tossed out and killed instead of becoming full-fledged humans. Sounds the same to me.
> no one's saying they're the same
That's exactly what you're doing when you call a fetus a "human life". You're comparing it to actual human. "Scraping babies" is saying that the mass being removed is, in fact, human baby. If either of those are true (fetuses are equally valuable in regards to human life and can be called babies) then answer my hypothetical question: which would you save? You and the other "moralists" insist again and again that a fetus is just a much a human life with just as much a right to live, yet not a single one of you can answer my question in a way that agrees with that belief. Tell me you honestly could not make the decision: that the baby and the fetus are just as equally worth saving. Tell me that it's as much a decision as "shoot the stranger on the left, or the one on the right" and I'll concede. But so long as your answer is "I'd save the baby but/because/only/etc..." then you and the others cannot call fetuses babies. You can't call cells human life. Because you've drawn clear division in your aswer.
But of course, your response will by hypocritical to itself. "I'd save the baby, but a fetus has just as much a right to life." Because it always is the same self-failing logic that drives the non-Christian to oppose abortion.
Bunches of cells that, given the right care, could become children are being tossed out and killed instead of becoming full-fledged humans. Sounds the same to me.
> no one's saying they're the same
That's exactly what you're doing when you call a fetus a "human life". You're comparing it to actual human. "Scraping babies" is saying that the mass being removed is, in fact, human baby. If either of those are true (fetuses are equally valuable in regards to human life and can be called babies) then answer my hypothetical question: which would you save? You and the other "moralists" insist again and again that a fetus is just a much a human life with just as much a right to live, yet not a single one of you can answer my question in a way that agrees with that belief. Tell me you honestly could not make the decision: that the baby and the fetus are just as equally worth saving. Tell me that it's as much a decision as "shoot the stranger on the left, or the one on the right" and I'll concede. But so long as your answer is "I'd save the baby but/because/only/etc..." then you and the others cannot call fetuses babies. You can't call cells human life. Because you've drawn clear division in your aswer.
But of course, your response will by hypocritical to itself. "I'd save the baby, but a fetus has just as much a right to life." Because it always is the same self-failing logic that drives the non-Christian to oppose abortion.
#323 to #314
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] >Bunches of cells that, given the right care, could become children are being tossed out and killed instead of becoming full-fledged humans. Sounds the same to me.
You're either being disingenuous or you're ignorant to what sperm is and how the process works. I can educate on the latter, but the former is a case of resistance to anything you don't already agree with. In the second case no amount of fact, evidence, reasoning, or logic will remove you from your entrenched position.
I know you think your burning house is brilliant and all, but it misses the point entirely. You seem to think my position is based on asserting that "fetuses are the same as babies" but that's not the case at all. I simply don't care what you call it, or whatever euphemisms you use to rationalize it to yourself, my position remains the same.
Let me frame this for you in another way: Your question assumes that all life is worth the same and is equal. This is simply not the case; I could replace your subjects with a terminal cancer patient and a healthy child and pose the same question.
The answer to this question does not mean the other is somehow sub-human or is okay to kill. You are making a false equivalence.
I'll finish with exactly what my position is: I find the unnecessary destruction of human life to be morally reprehensible. I know the common rationalization is to not consider fetuses to be human life, but we all know what they eventually become. Let's not sugarcoat it. You're denying it the chance to even live. I find this morally unacceptable and maybe even worse than the taking of a life that's been lived.
It makes no difference to me how much a fetus is "worth" in comparison.
You're either being disingenuous or you're ignorant to what sperm is and how the process works. I can educate on the latter, but the former is a case of resistance to anything you don't already agree with. In the second case no amount of fact, evidence, reasoning, or logic will remove you from your entrenched position.
I know you think your burning house is brilliant and all, but it misses the point entirely. You seem to think my position is based on asserting that "fetuses are the same as babies" but that's not the case at all. I simply don't care what you call it, or whatever euphemisms you use to rationalize it to yourself, my position remains the same.
Let me frame this for you in another way: Your question assumes that all life is worth the same and is equal. This is simply not the case; I could replace your subjects with a terminal cancer patient and a healthy child and pose the same question.
The answer to this question does not mean the other is somehow sub-human or is okay to kill. You are making a false equivalence.
I'll finish with exactly what my position is: I find the unnecessary destruction of human life to be morally reprehensible. I know the common rationalization is to not consider fetuses to be human life, but we all know what they eventually become. Let's not sugarcoat it. You're denying it the chance to even live. I find this morally unacceptable and maybe even worse than the taking of a life that's been lived.
It makes no difference to me how much a fetus is "worth" in comparison.
#338 to #323
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
See, what you continue to dodge is what I'm trying to prove.
That's always the case with people on your end of the argument. The burning house analogy does not exist to prove which one is worth more - it's to prove there is a clear and distinct difference between an unborn fetus (or cellular mass before the fetus is formed) and an actual human baby. Simply, you know for a fact you would save the already-born baby. It's not even a debate: of course you'd save the actual baby. Now, we could induce that this decision means the baby is worth more (it is) but that's not the point.
The point is, you can't call it "killing babies" and "taking human life" if you can't value it to the same extent that you'd value a human life (burning house). You want to say you're against the loss of potential life, then fine. But the loss of potential life is not murder. Murder is the ending of an existing life. And once again, of the loss of potential life is a damnable offense then we should do away with condoms and the morning-after pill because they result in the loss of potential life when those cells are not given the chance to grown into actual humans and live their lives.
Of course you scoff and say there is no similarity between the two, use your silver-dollar verbage to call me ignorant and stubborn. But tell me: at what point does it cease to be cells and become a human life? Once it's shaped like a baby? Once it has organs? Once the DNA is unique? Once the cells are combined? Once the cells are given the chance to combine? Tell me where the line really is, and once you find the line tell me if abortion behind that line is somehow less morally disturbing to you.
That's always the case with people on your end of the argument. The burning house analogy does not exist to prove which one is worth more - it's to prove there is a clear and distinct difference between an unborn fetus (or cellular mass before the fetus is formed) and an actual human baby. Simply, you know for a fact you would save the already-born baby. It's not even a debate: of course you'd save the actual baby. Now, we could induce that this decision means the baby is worth more (it is) but that's not the point.
The point is, you can't call it "killing babies" and "taking human life" if you can't value it to the same extent that you'd value a human life (burning house). You want to say you're against the loss of potential life, then fine. But the loss of potential life is not murder. Murder is the ending of an existing life. And once again, of the loss of potential life is a damnable offense then we should do away with condoms and the morning-after pill because they result in the loss of potential life when those cells are not given the chance to grown into actual humans and live their lives.
Of course you scoff and say there is no similarity between the two, use your silver-dollar verbage to call me ignorant and stubborn. But tell me: at what point does it cease to be cells and become a human life? Once it's shaped like a baby? Once it has organs? Once the DNA is unique? Once the cells are combined? Once the cells are given the chance to combine? Tell me where the line really is, and once you find the line tell me if abortion behind that line is somehow less morally disturbing to you.
#348 to #338
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] >it's to prove there is a clear and distinct difference between an unborn fetus
You don't need your silly analogy to say this. I already know this is the case. I've told you already that it doesn't change my position.
>The point is, you can't call it "killing babies" and "taking human life" if you can't value it to the same extent that you'd value a human life.
I don't, but I have to comment on this because it's the same flawed argument: We've already established that not all lives are of equal worth. There is honestly some human life out there that I'd value below that of a fetus.
> loss of potential life is a damnable offense then we should do away with condoms and the morning-after pill because they result in the loss of potential life when those cells are not given the chance to grown into actual humans and live their lives.
Again, you display an astounding amount of ignorance here. If you were intellectually honest you'd admit that you really do get what I'm saying.
>But the loss of potential life is not murder. Murder is the ending of an existing life.
I don't recall saying it was. You can call it whatever you'd like as long as you're not doing so to be dishonest with yourself. Call it "super happy fun time" if you'd like, it doesn't make a difference to me.
I don't base my beliefs or morality simply on what terminology is used.
I'll rephrase what I believe in a way as to protect the shell of euphemisms:
If I were put in the position, I could not bring myself to end what would eventually become a human being. That's it.
You don't need your silly analogy to say this. I already know this is the case. I've told you already that it doesn't change my position.
>The point is, you can't call it "killing babies" and "taking human life" if you can't value it to the same extent that you'd value a human life.
I don't, but I have to comment on this because it's the same flawed argument: We've already established that not all lives are of equal worth. There is honestly some human life out there that I'd value below that of a fetus.
> loss of potential life is a damnable offense then we should do away with condoms and the morning-after pill because they result in the loss of potential life when those cells are not given the chance to grown into actual humans and live their lives.
Again, you display an astounding amount of ignorance here. If you were intellectually honest you'd admit that you really do get what I'm saying.
>But the loss of potential life is not murder. Murder is the ending of an existing life.
I don't recall saying it was. You can call it whatever you'd like as long as you're not doing so to be dishonest with yourself. Call it "super happy fun time" if you'd like, it doesn't make a difference to me.
I don't base my beliefs or morality simply on what terminology is used.
I'll rephrase what I believe in a way as to protect the shell of euphemisms:
If I were put in the position, I could not bring myself to end what would eventually become a human being. That's it.
#349 to #348
-
justtocomment (10/20/2015) [-]
Look, your stance is completely based on morality but what is the route of that morality? What makes a fetus worth calling a human life? It's not about terminology it's about value.
If human life = X , babies are human life so babies = X . Fetus, as we have determined and agreed, are not babies. So fetus =/= babies. Therefore, fetus =/= X = human life.
If human life = X , babies are human life so babies = X . Fetus, as we have determined and agreed, are not babies. So fetus =/= babies. Therefore, fetus =/= X = human life.
#350 to #349
-
durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-] I don't think a comparison to the value of human life is what makes something acceptable to destroy/kill/etc. It will become a life very shortly and I'm just not okay with taking away that existence. Others are, but that's them. I'm not one to impose my values on others.
#193 to #191
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
So you recognize a clear moral and actual difference between the two.
Rationalize and excuse it however you want, there is a clear line between baby and fetus. And until you value that fetus exactly as much as that baby, you can't call abortions "baby scraping".
Rationalize and excuse it however you want, there is a clear line between baby and fetus. And until you value that fetus exactly as much as that baby, you can't call abortions "baby scraping".
#198 to #196
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
"Murder".
How exactly? Is it murder to cut skin off my arm? "Well that's your DNA". So Can we charge the chemotherapist with murder for all the cancer cells they kill? Those cells didn't consent to being removed, they don't share my DNA. "Well that is a death sentence not to remove them".
How about this, is it murder to bring a child into a world and family that can't/won't support it? Is it murder to bring a child with a degenerative defect into this world to die by age five? Is it murder to force a woman to carry a child to term despite her anemia and communicable diseases, sentencing her to death on the birthing table? Where do you draw the line on murder? Since you want to go the emotional route on this one, qualify each and every one of the deaths in a way that makes it right. "She knew the risks when she..." so sex is a death sentence? Unwanted pregnancy due to rape is worth punishing the mother for?
Qualify each of those, since you want to use emotional garbage to quantify an abortion as murder.
How exactly? Is it murder to cut skin off my arm? "Well that's your DNA". So Can we charge the chemotherapist with murder for all the cancer cells they kill? Those cells didn't consent to being removed, they don't share my DNA. "Well that is a death sentence not to remove them".
How about this, is it murder to bring a child into a world and family that can't/won't support it? Is it murder to bring a child with a degenerative defect into this world to die by age five? Is it murder to force a woman to carry a child to term despite her anemia and communicable diseases, sentencing her to death on the birthing table? Where do you draw the line on murder? Since you want to go the emotional route on this one, qualify each and every one of the deaths in a way that makes it right. "She knew the risks when she..." so sex is a death sentence? Unwanted pregnancy due to rape is worth punishing the mother for?
Qualify each of those, since you want to use emotional garbage to quantify an abortion as murder.
#186 to #180
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Seriously? A heavily-edited video pops up, provided by an anti-abortion organization, and Planned Parenthood is threatened with complete defunding because of it. How is it not still on the table? The fact that the issue hit the floor at all and was not immediately dismissed as "abortion isn't illegal, ens of discussion" means that it's still on the table.
#190 to #188
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
And that full video revealed the "corruption and incorrectly allocated funds" were off the cuff jokes and literally no wrong doing occurred.
And somehow, the topic of defunding planned parenthood actually ******* happened.
And somehow, the topic of defunding planned parenthood actually ******* happened.
#195 to #194
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
And they'd be (and this isn't opinion, it's measurable fact) wrong.
Multiple audits and investigations, including interviews with the people in the "damning" video have proven that
A) no money was misallocated
B) personal accounts were not taken into consideration
C) abortions make up a very small percentage of what planned parenthood actually provides.
So those people can disagree all they want. Their opinion on the matter is just as a valid as "Obama wasn't born in America". Quantifiably wrong and in a very provable way.
Multiple audits and investigations, including interviews with the people in the "damning" video have proven that
A) no money was misallocated
B) personal accounts were not taken into consideration
C) abortions make up a very small percentage of what planned parenthood actually provides.
So those people can disagree all they want. Their opinion on the matter is just as a valid as "Obama wasn't born in America". Quantifiably wrong and in a very provable way.
#200 to #199
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
And nothing in that conversation is illegal. They are allowed to sell/distribute the discarded cellular mass to vendors at pricing and restrictions both parties (authorized and registered) agree on.
Same goes for fat removed from plastic surgery and organs no longer suitable for transplant. It's cells. Pieces of cellular mass that do no equate to a human being.
Same goes for fat removed from plastic surgery and organs no longer suitable for transplant. It's cells. Pieces of cellular mass that do no equate to a human being.
#312 to #203
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Sure, I've got two. It's not like that lump of cells in my back have some innate right to stay in me.
#340 to #339
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Not sure why you thumbed me down. You're being a sarcastic **** and your example failed.
#342 to #341
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Right, the Kidney is an organ (made of tissues, in turn made of cells) that belongs to me and I am a human capable of making that decision.
A fetus is little more than organized bunch of tissue and has about as much rights as my Kidney: and the woman carrying that little sack of stem cells gets to make that decision. Because a kidney doesn't have rights and neither does a fetus.
A fetus is little more than organized bunch of tissue and has about as much rights as my Kidney: and the woman carrying that little sack of stem cells gets to make that decision. Because a kidney doesn't have rights and neither does a fetus.
#344 to #342
-
ronniesan (10/19/2015) [-] > because it's incapable of making a decision means it doesnt matter.
OK
So I can kill my dog since it depends on me to take care of it. And I can euthanize an old man with Alzheimer since they can't tell me not to.
Everyone has their own opinion on who has rights.
OK
So I can kill my dog since it depends on me to take care of it. And I can euthanize an old man with Alzheimer since they can't tell me not to.
Everyone has their own opinion on who has rights.
#345 to #344
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Actually, you can have your dog put down if you find it to be in the best interest of the majority.
And some would argue that a person has the right to die if they want to. Euthenazia is still an ongoing debate but completely separate from this conversation.
And some would argue that a person has the right to die if they want to. Euthenazia is still an ongoing debate but completely separate from this conversation.
#87
-
sirquidam (10/18/2015) [-] YFW you realize those kind of people will live on Mars, in the large converted asteroids of the Belt, on the Moons of Jupiter, perhaps even sunbathing on newly terraformed Venusian beach at some point in future. And they'll still complain about wasting money on exploring other star systems.
#100 to #87
-
captainprincess ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] Let 'em
They're on mars, where your roommates getting tired of your **** and locking you out for the night is a lot more dangerous
They're on mars, where your roommates getting tired of your **** and locking you out for the night is a lot more dangerous
#197
-
manter (10/19/2015) [-] "Hurr, I don't understand science, but that's a big number, and a lot of dollar signs. It must be a complete waste of money." What a ******* idiot. If you think landing a remote controlled buggy on mars is a complete waste of time and money, you might as well think the entire space program is a waste of money.
#204
-
anon (10/19/2015) [-] That's not how economics works. The man hours and resources put into the project cannot be put back into the economy. If government spending could directly translate to economic profit, then the USSR would have been the wealthiest nation in the world. Not to mention the opportunity costs of the taxes themselves. That money could have been put use literally anywhere else.
That said, I personally think space travel is a worthwhile investment, and it's pretty neat to see the progress.
That said, I personally think space travel is a worthwhile investment, and it's pretty neat to see the progress.
#311 to #204
-
billywonka (10/19/2015) [-] That's not how logic works.
We paid people to research, build, and go into space.
That's money going directly back into our economy, not to mention the benefits down the line resulting from the research and work done.
What you're describing is as if we gave the money [as if] to a bunch of literal aliens from another world to give us a spaceship to fly to the moon with. That would add a layer of wasteful spending that in no way benefits us.
![That's not how logic works.
We paid people to research, build, and go into space.
That's money going directly back into our economy, not to mention the benefits down the line resulting from the research and work done.
What you're describing is as if we gave the money [as if] to a bunch of literal aliens from another world to give us a spaceship to fly to the moon with. That would add a layer of wasteful spending that in no way benefits us.](http://2static1.fjcdn.com/comments/That+s+not+how+logic+works+_dd08983e1b593f09a1c1c157460d1a4f.jpg)
We paid people to research, build, and go into space.
That's money going directly back into our economy, not to mention the benefits down the line resulting from the research and work done.
What you're describing is as if we gave the money [as if] to a bunch of literal aliens from another world to give us a spaceship to fly to the moon with. That would add a layer of wasteful spending that in no way benefits us.
#224 to #204
-
anonymousmkiii (10/19/2015) [-] Its trickle-down economics. That $100 million went to pay for a few things, for example
-maintenance and repair of the facilities
-the ground crew monitoring the thing
-the workers that researched, designed, and created the rover, the rocket, etc
-the payload (rover, landing mechanism, etc)
-the rocket
The latter two are made up from products that come from a whole variety of companies. These companies have employees that make the parts from stock materials. The companies that make these also have employees to create the stock from raw materials. And this is fairly simplified, in the making of one part, there are dozens of companies interacting to make proper parts
And they all have employees. A good chunk of those employees are based in the U.S., so they not only pay sales tax on many non-food items, they also pay federal taxes every year. So not only has the money they spent been put into the economy in the form of goods purchased, it also goes back into the ******* government to be put into the budget for nasa. Or statistically, due to the low percentage of the budget NASA gets, into a drone strike.
TL;DR: The money gets put into the economy in some way/shape/form with all in-country transactions.
-maintenance and repair of the facilities
-the ground crew monitoring the thing
-the workers that researched, designed, and created the rover, the rocket, etc
-the payload (rover, landing mechanism, etc)
-the rocket
The latter two are made up from products that come from a whole variety of companies. These companies have employees that make the parts from stock materials. The companies that make these also have employees to create the stock from raw materials. And this is fairly simplified, in the making of one part, there are dozens of companies interacting to make proper parts
And they all have employees. A good chunk of those employees are based in the U.S., so they not only pay sales tax on many non-food items, they also pay federal taxes every year. So not only has the money they spent been put into the economy in the form of goods purchased, it also goes back into the ******* government to be put into the budget for nasa. Or statistically, due to the low percentage of the budget NASA gets, into a drone strike.
TL;DR: The money gets put into the economy in some way/shape/form with all in-country transactions.
#248 to #224
-
anon (10/19/2015) [-]
But there's a net loss of resources and labor. It's not a zero-sum game. Which is why trickle-down as a policy cannot work. The fact stands that resources and man hours went into one thing when they could have gone into another or many smaller things of equal, greater, or lesser importance.
Money isn't fundamentally what drives economic activity. Money is just a means of trade.
Money isn't fundamentally what drives economic activity. Money is just a means of trade.
#259 to #248
-
anonymousmkiii (10/19/2015) [-] But the problem is trickle-down DOES work. The man-hours you are so adamant we are losing are a renewable resource, a by-product of ******* . So long as the population increases, the man-hours available increases.
There are other factors to production beyond man-hours, like the production process itself. Throwing more people at an assembly line or CNC lathe go faster, and before you say "build more and it will", consider this: Manufacturing processes do not go at the same speed. There will be defecits and pileups, processes that are faster and slower. Adding an extra person at one stage of the process may only create a bigger pileup down the line at a process that is now the bottleneck for the operation. So yes, those man-hours could have been used on something else. Would they have been used effectively, or in a way that benefitted everyone? not necessarily.
As for the materials, yes, they are spent. This doesn't mean the money is lost, however, as the same process that applies to NASA applies to the company that creates the raw materials, workers get paid, they pay for goods or services, and money keeps flowing, keeping the economy working. The companies or firms that make the equipment for mining or creating the products get money for creating the equipment, the money gets sent to their employees, or into a company that created the stock, life goes on.
So in other words, yes, man-hours were used, yes, resources were used. Man-hours are renewable, and some products are renewable as well. The usage of these man-hours is what keeps the economy running. You work, you use that money to buy food, a car, wash clothes, etc. That money in turn gets spent by the people that work those industries. In most cases, the money trickles back into one of these people buying a product you make, but in NASA's case, it is collected off of taxes, used in industry, which then does the same thing.
There are other factors to production beyond man-hours, like the production process itself. Throwing more people at an assembly line or CNC lathe go faster, and before you say "build more and it will", consider this: Manufacturing processes do not go at the same speed. There will be defecits and pileups, processes that are faster and slower. Adding an extra person at one stage of the process may only create a bigger pileup down the line at a process that is now the bottleneck for the operation. So yes, those man-hours could have been used on something else. Would they have been used effectively, or in a way that benefitted everyone? not necessarily.
As for the materials, yes, they are spent. This doesn't mean the money is lost, however, as the same process that applies to NASA applies to the company that creates the raw materials, workers get paid, they pay for goods or services, and money keeps flowing, keeping the economy working. The companies or firms that make the equipment for mining or creating the products get money for creating the equipment, the money gets sent to their employees, or into a company that created the stock, life goes on.
So in other words, yes, man-hours were used, yes, resources were used. Man-hours are renewable, and some products are renewable as well. The usage of these man-hours is what keeps the economy running. You work, you use that money to buy food, a car, wash clothes, etc. That money in turn gets spent by the people that work those industries. In most cases, the money trickles back into one of these people buying a product you make, but in NASA's case, it is collected off of taxes, used in industry, which then does the same thing.
#274 to #259
-
anon (10/19/2015) [-]
www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0
I'd like to assume that you're some kind of master's student of economics that has done countless hours of reading into this subject, but it seems that you've done at most minimal reading into the subject.
You can't consume and then produce. It's not physically possible. You don't work, get money, and magically get to exchange it for food. The food has to be there before you buy it. There has to be a physical product there already. That's what wealth is. It has nothing to do with fiat currency. Money has absolutely no value past the paper its printed on if there is nothing you can exchange it for. To put it bluntly, you're jumping to conclusions before understanding the fundamentals of economics.
Trickle-down was a policy plan and a theory, not an economic fact. And when put to the test, it failed horribly, and there are many economists who have analyzed the reasons for that. From Austrian to Keynesian to Chicago, the general consensus is that trickle-down does not work. The only aspect of trickle-down economics that has held any weight is the idea that there is an optimal tax rate such that the tax income is maximized.
I'd like to assume that you're some kind of master's student of economics that has done countless hours of reading into this subject, but it seems that you've done at most minimal reading into the subject.
You can't consume and then produce. It's not physically possible. You don't work, get money, and magically get to exchange it for food. The food has to be there before you buy it. There has to be a physical product there already. That's what wealth is. It has nothing to do with fiat currency. Money has absolutely no value past the paper its printed on if there is nothing you can exchange it for. To put it bluntly, you're jumping to conclusions before understanding the fundamentals of economics.
Trickle-down was a policy plan and a theory, not an economic fact. And when put to the test, it failed horribly, and there are many economists who have analyzed the reasons for that. From Austrian to Keynesian to Chicago, the general consensus is that trickle-down does not work. The only aspect of trickle-down economics that has held any weight is the idea that there is an optimal tax rate such that the tax income is maximized.
#321 to #274
-
anonymousmkiii (10/19/2015) [-] just out of curiosity did you actuslly pay $10 for a paywall paper to settle an arguement?
#331 to #328
-
anonymousmkiii (10/19/2015) [-] No big. If you're a uni student going for economics, i'll just deferr to you. My specialty is aviation and UAS.
#60
-
mcassio ONLINE (10/18/2015) [-] Fun fact: at the moment, if the sun decides to have a solar flare, or an asteroid gets too close, or half a dozen other things, all life on the planet will be instantly wiped out, and the human race will become completely extinct. All of our eggs are in one basket at the moment, so any attempts to colonize the surrounding area are ok in my book.
#95 to #60
-
sirquidam (10/18/2015) [-] That's why it's time to consider creating the beginnings of space colonization attempt and developing planetary defenses for Earth. One of many things could wipe us out in one fell swoop. A stray asteroid, a solar flare, or a gamma ray burst. Oh, and even if asteroid doesn't hit us, it could hit the moon and royally **** up our ocean's tides which in turn ***** up our weather and generally cause lot of bad **** .
#172 to #95
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
Well once you and your buddy here convince the world to survive off rice and protein pills, we'll get right on that "allocating all our resources to putting people off into the deep dark reaches of nothingness we call space" thing.
#313 to #206
-
justtocomment (10/19/2015) [-]
I didn't say it was more important. I'm just saying good luck with it.
"Alright, everyone, no one gets personal gains anymore and you have to live off of tasteless food because all our available resources and potential for growth are being set aside for the ability to send a handful of individuals off into space on the off chance that the rest of us die a cosmos death here on this planet".
"Alright, everyone, no one gets personal gains anymore and you have to live off of tasteless food because all our available resources and potential for growth are being set aside for the ability to send a handful of individuals off into space on the off chance that the rest of us die a cosmos death here on this planet".
#63 to #57
-
baditch (10/18/2015) [-] That's not what profit even means, dude. Profit is measured after salaries are paid. The owners decide how much each of them get to make, and in a good organization that will be a small amount. Some churches are bad NFP organizations and the same goes for some cancer research orgs and stuff like that. They are all capable of abusing donations in the same way and when they do it's wrong. It's up to people like us to do the research first. When I think of churches I'm ususally talking about the smaller ones that just pay the preacher and keep the lights on and give the rest to the soup kitchen. I'm not talking about ******* Billy Grahm or some **** , that's a separate issue.
#106 to #57
-
severepwner (10/18/2015) [-] Ok, I guess people that work for the church as pastors full time are just meant to to be poor to the point of homelessness because you hate religion. Ok.
#52 to #46
-
trollmobile (10/18/2015) [-] here's some of the net worths of some US pastors:
Benny Hinn $42 million
Creflo Dollar $27 million
Billy Grahm $25 million
and Bishop T. D. Jakes $18 million
these people run churces
these are the "non-profit" organizations you speak of.
they are getting filthy rich on "donations" to the churces.
these are by the way all among the richest pastors in the world
the only place that compares to the US in terms of filthy rich religious leaders, is Nigeria.
and do you really want your country being compared to Nigeria?
Benny Hinn $42 million
Creflo Dollar $27 million
Billy Grahm $25 million
and Bishop T. D. Jakes $18 million
these people run churces
these are the "non-profit" organizations you speak of.
they are getting filthy rich on "donations" to the churces.
these are by the way all among the richest pastors in the world
the only place that compares to the US in terms of filthy rich religious leaders, is Nigeria.
and do you really want your country being compared to Nigeria?
#58 to #52
-
baditch (10/18/2015) [-] Good job on the research but you're not doing anything to contradict me. The church itself is non-profit which is why they don't get taxed. When the leaders get rich it's because they pay themselves a salary that is not included in profit.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.
#77 to #52
-
anon (10/18/2015) [-]
i wouldnt waste your time, so many people on funnyjunk are too narrow minded to view a church as anything past the small community church they go to on sundays. Even if you could come up with a way to fix the problem with megachurches it would be red thumbed here because people are too busy eating the assault on religious freedom propaganda to care about the ******** some of these organizations are getting away with. Yet when an obviously ******** religion comes along like scientology, everyone mocks it and says it shouldnt be tax exempt. welcome to funnyjunks logic
#127 to #77
-
hirollin (10/18/2015) [-] Compare the number of megachurches to overall churches.
That's like saying because Bill Gates make billions a year every single person in the entire U.S. should be in the same tax bracket as him.
That is retarded.
Narrow minded would be wanting to tax all the churches without doing any research either financial or historical such as you are proposing. Grow the **** up.
That's like saying because Bill Gates make billions a year every single person in the entire U.S. should be in the same tax bracket as him.
That is retarded.
Narrow minded would be wanting to tax all the churches without doing any research either financial or historical such as you are proposing. Grow the **** up.
#55 to #46
-
trollmobile (10/18/2015) [-] the only reason they're classified as "non-profit" is because the payments are called "donations" and they sell sermons rather than a physical product.
other than that, they work exactly like any other corporation.
other than that, they work exactly like any other corporation.
#93 to #92
-
trollmobile (10/18/2015) [-] then solve the problem, don't just go "others do it too"
******* solve the problem of organizations benefitting from tax exemption while raking in money.
******* solve the problem of organizations benefitting from tax exemption while raking in money.
#108 to #23
-
nimba (10/18/2015) [-] They are also automatically exempt for tax revue, so that churches are specifically trusted to not be cheating the tax system where you or I or the business down the street is not. This means that churches may be making profit, swindling their tax thus abusing the system. Moreover we just don't know; because they are automatically exempt from revue.
I don't think it makes sense to automatically not revue the tax of any person or organisation.
I don't think it makes sense to automatically not revue the tax of any person or organisation.
#213 to #108
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
#324 to #300
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] I think the real problem is that you're now making a law respecting the establishment of religion.
#332 to #324
-
nimba (10/19/2015) [-] It doesn't impinge on any religion's right to worship, it's just correcting the position of the state of having, contrary to the constitution, previously given special treatment to religions which they should have no business doing. Note that there are laws respecting the establishment of religion in the tax code. To correct this to take all religion out of tax code, thus law, all churches may apply as any other applicant non-profit and have to justify their tax exempt privilege the same as any other non-profit. There is literally no reason a church should be exempt from tax revue but the red cross or doctors without borders is not.That's true seperation of church and state.
The churches are not, as much as they may wish, immune to enforcement of the law and should not be immune to enforcing the spirit of the law eg no special treatment for religion by the state.
The real problem is when the churches first snuck into the tax code, you're just defending the status quo contrary to the constitution.
The churches are not, as much as they may wish, immune to enforcement of the law and should not be immune to enforcing the spirit of the law eg no special treatment for religion by the state.
The real problem is when the churches first snuck into the tax code, you're just defending the status quo contrary to the constitution.
#333 to #332
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] Wow, you certainly know more about this than I do. I'm definitely going to have to reevaluate my position. I don't like the idea of taxing churches but you've demonstrated for me that the argument I made isn't really valid.
10/10 would get to make me think again
10/10 would get to make me think again
#336 to #334
-
durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-] Well hey man, you present me with evidence and a convincing argument. I'm going to have to reevaluate my position and do my homework.
#65
-
PSpepper (10/18/2015) [-] Putting a rover on Mars, sending a satellite past Pluto to take pictures, and landing a man on the moon are some of mankind's greatest achievements, and these help us move forward as a species.
Regarding space, "Cause it's next. Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next." -The West Wing
Regarding space, "Cause it's next. Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next." -The West Wing
#11
-
vladhellsing (10/18/2015) [-] Only $2.5 billion? I thought it'd cost more than that, I might send one there myself.
#217
-
trickytrickster (10/19/2015) [-]
Ah the classic tax the churches argument. Ignore the fact that the government would then have to pay for billions of volunteer hours, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, adoption agencies, hospitals, schools, etc. People neglect to realize how many social services are efficiently taken care of for free by religious places.
#220
-
lumpymandude (10/19/2015) [-] Wow this is a really stupid post. You do know that the church gives away a lot of its money anyway. Also, most of the money that the US spends on the military is spent on salaries for the military, and members of the military are in this country, so their money is going back to the economy. Retards just say things to hear themselves talk i swear to God.
#253 to #220
-
anon (10/19/2015) [-]
If everybody was staffed in the army, we'd have no employment and people would have plenty of money, but nothing to spend that money on because the US dollar would be absolutely worthless.
Sure the military is important, but you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that the US is not way overspending on military at the moment. Some of that money may be going back into the economy in some way or another, but there is no production being done by the military to offset the consumption. That either means debt which means less money for future generations, or taxes which means less money for everybody but the military.
Sure the military is important, but you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that the US is not way overspending on military at the moment. Some of that money may be going back into the economy in some way or another, but there is no production being done by the military to offset the consumption. That either means debt which means less money for future generations, or taxes which means less money for everybody but the military.
#335 to #253
-
lumpymandude (10/19/2015) [-] Buddy i can easily make the argument, but that's a different topic,what i ask ishow is money being paid to soldiers any different than that being paid to NASA? It isn't
#262 to #220
-
jasperthefennec (10/19/2015) [-]
"most of the money that the US spends on the military is spent on salaries for the military"
this is so far from being true
this is so far from being true
