-
'time travel into the past is possible'
-
Spatial velocity is given as dx/dt. Velocity in time(dt/dt) is nonsensical. As simple as that. In other words, no time travel to the past or the future, no motion in space-time.
-
I'm not sure this is really an argument, but if we can remember what happened yesterday, isn't this to some extent time travel?
-
'The test at politicalcompass.org is invalid'
-
The outcome of the test is that of political opinion, yet it tests for general opinion. The statements assume that the person wants to solve everything with government. Government isn't always the best solution, so a persons general opinion can differ from their political opinion. For example, it's like asking me if I support murderers, but then wonder why I don't support chicken soup as a deterrent.
-
From the site:
"It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society."
I get the feeling that by answering "yes", the quiz is assuming that I want the government to do something about it.
-
I THINK IF YOU WORK FOR IT YOU COULD DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO WITH IT.
-
I'm sorry, but I fail to see where this affects the Political Compass.
-
'teach evolution instead of creationism'
-
Creationism fails the Lemon test established by the Supreme Court in Lemov vs. Kurtzman: Under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion.
-
should mention creationism. It's a longstanding belief which should be addressed on the grounds of scientific verifiability, not on emotional grounds of constitutionality or religious tolerance.
-
Creationism is in no way provable and provides very few plausible, verifiable arguments for its validity. Moreover, it is a longstanding belief that the moon is made of green cheese but we don't teach that.
I believe in God. I do not believe in the church's interpretation of Creation. I do not believe that Moses' words translated from language to language to language and manipulated several times by the church should be taken to be the literal truth.
-
Moses's words were recorded by scribes who made thousands of copies of one chapter jut so that the manuscript would be perfect. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the correctness of the "manipulated" words.
-
JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter, that does not make it true.
You must look at and prove the claims, not spout unverified dogma that could very well be fiction. This is what seperates the men from the boys.
Evolution has plenty of evidence backing it up.
Creationism has some books with questionable accuracy, with no evidence to back up its claims.
-
If I am not mistaken, Rowling has made a point to say that her books are not true. I can't recall hearing of a single book of the bible ment to be fictional.
-
'teach evolution instead of creationism'
-
...would go hand in hand, had history not split the two apart. Religion and science could intertwine through the acceptance of multiple viewpoints. God could be the creator of science, or god could be science itself. Therefore, creationism should at least brush the classroom.
-
'Race Should Not be a Consideration in College Admissions'
-
College should welcome the brightest minds, not the most diverse. By admitting wise, deserving students, those willing to take advantage of life's oppurtunities will prosper.
-
'The right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs.'
-
"The listener can either choose not to listen, or to criticize the offensive expression."
yes this is the way the listener should react. but lets live in the real world where we have radicals and extremists. Logic and rationality is not their thing. They have a strong emotion towards their religion no matter how irrational their religion might be. We already know what these radicals can do. the 9/11 attacks, the london bombings etc. by our freedom of speech we are further fueling these extremists. In other words we are starting the fire ourselves. By our freedom of speech we are giving them a chance to further brain wash the youth by telling them how "evil" the nonbelievers are. so we should indulge in self cenorship.
-
If one chooses not to express his disconcent for someone or thing just because it may be offensive, he is choosing to stifle his own rights and suppor oppression. Should Marx have used self-censorship before writing his works, simply because others may feel it a bad idea? While ideas may face stiff resistance, they are still beneficial to a healthy society.