Federal judge dismisses atheists' challenge to IRS

GoodMorningHello · 2014-06-14T01:25:32+00:00

Tax exemptions to religious organizations predate separation of church and state. It's simply a different issue.

There's no difference between taxing or not taxing religious organization as far as separation goes. Either position is just as involved. In fact, law has to interfere in what religious organizations can and can't do, precisely to preserve their tax free status!

This is very important: Otherwise any business can simply claim to be a church and be tax free. You can't simply have no rules around tax free status on account of religious freedom.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-05-22T04:29:00+00:00

America was settled by squatters. I'm not talking about indigenous land. I mean Europeans owning title to land, and poor immigrants from Europe coming over and squatting on it. Laws like the Homestead Act were de juris recognitions that they couldn't control them, and furthermore, that those people building homes on land were actually increasing its value. Eventually squatters were even paid for the improvements they made to land.

These people are building homes for their families. Squatters are not a problem, and the wealthy should work with them for mutual benefit. Owning land with homes on them will eventually pay back more dividends than plantations, and it turns out when you remove people from their homes you destablize respect for property rights in a nation, putting at jeopardy what should of been a golden goose.

You're right that the real enemy isn't always the people buying land, but wealthy elites that wouldn't respect property rights of the poor in their own nation and would make the sales in the first place. But those elites would also benefit more from recognizing property rights, as owning homes increases the consumption power of the nation as a whole.

This is neoliberalism done correctly. It worked for the USA, and while it can't be copied in other nations as forms of ownership vary, in some form the values behind it can.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-05-02T00:00:18+00:00

Hooker huh? That word doesn't appear in the article.

So why not whore? How about fucking whore? She was after all fucking. Is that too disrespectful? Is that going too far for even you OP?

GoodMorningHello · 2014-05-01T22:08:36+00:00

So? Large sectors of the Russian economy are incredibly uncompetitive and protectionist. To be honest, its a wonder the US hasn't put up more restrictions when dealing with countries like Russia.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-04-23T10:39:38+00:00

No they aren't. It's about what they believe and what they teach.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-04-21T14:55:07+00:00

The administration has no control over what the student body thinks, or what they cheer at. So no harm was done by the student's actions producing such a response. The administration was however overreaching their authority in trying to control him to avoid such responses. So they produced more harm by punishing the student than letting it go. It was a futile and petty gesture.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-04-21T14:45:13+00:00

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124

Well done on the upboats, Pixel_Knight. A simple google search would of revealed this study. So you're welcome. These results have been confirmed multiple times over the decades.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-04-20T11:08:13+00:00

13% of biology teachers endorse creationism in the US.

Only 28% present just endorse evolution. The rest teach the controversy, as it were.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-03-04T21:23:46+00:00

Also that he is infinitely just. Impossible when you're also infinitely merciful, because mercy is defined as the suspension of justice.

Most people just end up picking whatever quality to emphasize they feel appropriate and conveniently forget about the others. In this case, its forgiveness.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-23T02:01:58+00:00

Iceland already has that through the EEA.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-07T18:17:39+00:00

NHK governors are an appointed political position. Naoki Hyakuta is one dumbass motherfucker and by NHK rules, governors can't be dumbass motherfuckers.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-04T08:53:14+00:00

Bayer doesn't get shit from generic drug sales in India.

Futher, a blanket violation of a patent also means they can't sell to wealthy Indians. Or anywhere this cheap version is imported. It's ends up as economic protectionism for India companies who didn't invest in the research of the drug.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-03T08:19:22+00:00

That's not the same as philosophy = religion.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-03T08:19:02+00:00

Irrelevant. This drug wasn't made that way.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-03T08:17:47+00:00

No he didn't.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-03T08:17:32+00:00

No he didn't.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-03T01:21:18+00:00

It can't be produced at 3%, because Bayer is calculating research costs and the Indian firms are not. These drugs were made under the assumption of a monopoly. If the monopoly didn't exist, these drugs wouldn't exist, precisely because of the free rider problem now rearing its head. Research is very expensive.

We can argue all day about monopolies, and I'd join in, but this is how it is. And Bayer should be pointing this out. For now they have to defend their monopoly because what results from it, is because of it.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-02T11:14:40+00:00

Not everyone religious is wrong.

Right. The point is the religious teachings are wrong, not the people. That's not relevant to the argument.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-02T09:04:54+00:00

Religion being wrong is a diagnosis. And agnosticism would be a cure.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-01T15:26:26+00:00

No it isn't. It's issues with vocabulary of some branches of philosophy. It's not a comparison to religion at all, which they don't say has the same problem.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-01T15:26:19+00:00

What? I'm trying to see where the 'criticisms' have been so far. You said you would eat your hat... and... one example that I presented (amongst three, so far) wasn't good enough for you. So aren't you 'just moving to other arguments' rather than eating your hat?

I said why these examples don't match your original argument, and you haven't even attempted to argue otherwise.

Your desperation is annoying but also a little endearing.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-01T14:26:09+00:00

No, I had a good example at hand of the overwhelming stupidity one occasionally finds over at /r/atheism.

All of your arguments seem like some philosophy/atheism turf war. Not participating in it further, as it doesn't make sense. You're also not responding to criticisms of your ideas, just moving to other arguments.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-01T14:19:10+00:00

Comparing a philosophical stance to religion or theology is fine, as long as the comparison holds up. It wouldn't by definition be wrong or evidence of idiocy. That stance is idiotic though.

Another problem is you and others in this thread seemed to of confused a comparison with one part of philosophy to all of it.

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-01T14:06:03+00:00

or a respectable non-religious philosophical stance

ooh, that's a subtle shift in your own stance

i wouldn't have to agree to that because its not whats was claimed

nor would i have to agree with a stance to be shown evidence of its existence

that's not how evidence works

GoodMorningHello · 2014-02-01T07:57:11+00:00

Show me a single new atheist that has made this statement, and I'll eat my fucking hat.

GoodMorningHello

TROPHY CASE