FunkyTown

Don't be too hard on yourself, Halfway. Exercise hits us all differently. I find that I get discouraged when I hit plateaus - When it seems the diet and exercise isn't making a difference. Then, I find out after a week of not doing it that yes... It does in fact make a difference.

You're right. It will probably be difficult. But it's true. What you do with that is entirely up to you.

I think part of it is that, certainly, but another part is that Buddhism is a hard nut to crack. It's a hard nut to crack because, essentially, Buddha was a smart man. Existence -is- suffering. Suffering -does- stem from desire. That's plain and true. That having been said, how does one transcend desire? We want to live, we want to eat, we want to love and we want to not be alone. Buddha is correct, but I am curious about the practicality of it. The Middle Way -is- the path of least resistance. Without fanaticism, without desire, we transcend war and pain. My question, and this is no attack, is what do you do when the world around you fails to live up to that ideal? Can you allow the innocent to suffer or do you rise up to protect the weak? Several schools of Buddhist thought do address this (Look at the Tamil Tigers, for instance). The transitory nature of reality is another stumbling block to true understanding between them. Christianity says it is the sole way to Heaven, Buddha says there are many ways to Enlightenment. This ultimately means Christianity is incorrect(At least on that assumption). Ultimately, because most don't understand Buddhism, they don't know how to communicate effectively to discuss our beliefs. It goes a bit beyond that, but that's the gist. Ultimately, I'm LDS. One of the great parts of our beliefs is that Buddha, who simply wanted to perceive truth, is not condemned for that. He is, instead, given the opportunity to be the teacher he should be. I imagine he makes quite the missionary right now.

Therein lies the problem, Halfway - Basically, the disagreement between people on A-Train's side(Such as JohnBirchSociety and Bytor) and people on -our- side of the fence is whether or not the government should step in to regulate excesses of wealth and how they should. For instance: Under A-train's ideal, everyone would give liberally to help give a hand up to one another. Under -our- ideal, we believe that humainty is inherently selfish and requires government regulation to provide for all people. We see their system as being inhuman and naive, leaving the poor to die outside hospitals while the rich live lives in islands of wealth. They perceive our system as being tyrannical, stealing from the majority to provide excuses for governmental monopolies and only incidentally providing for the needy while being abused by rich and poor alike. The truth is that Heaven will be much closer to their worldview than ours, simply because we -will- provide for those that need because we do love one another and it won't be forced. In the meantime, I have seen far too much of man's inhumanity to those that are not part of their immediate circle. I know without government mandate, those people will fall through the cracks - Far more than do now. I know this because before government mandated social programs, they did. Look at Victorian England or 19th Century American working conditions to see the consequences of unfettered business practice. I think A-Train understands where I'm coming from on this and where you're coming from on this. However, I believe his argument is that more government control means more waste and corruption and more likelihood of tyrannical practices. I agree. I also believe that corporate excesses result in the same, except that we can vote out government corruption. I think we both see the same facts, but just have different conclusions.

Yes. I'm pretty sure most people who have thought about it realizes the danger that guarantee poses. Everyone will borrow the money, up to the limit guaranteed by their various governments. Then, they will panic and stop lending to one another because they're used to not having to worry about it. In fact, intra-bank lending will hit an all time high simply because it doesn't matter to the lending officer. "Risky business venture with high pay off? If it works, I get a huge bonus! If it doesn't, it's -guaranteed-!" Frankly, it's a bunch of selfish, self-interested bankers causing it. The government didn't want a recession, so they bet on hope. The problem with betting on hope and not planning for the worst is that if the worst happens, it's worse than you can weather. Best case scenario: People smarten up and the economy gets back to relative normality, though it never reaches the highs of the past century. Worst case scenario: Total economic collapse because the individuals running the economy don't care if it succeeds or not, they just care about their individual bonuses. I'm not saying an economic collapse is imminent or even inevitable. It's just that the economy has been placed in a situation where hyperinflation -could- happen.

"A principle is the expression of perfection, and as imperfect beings like us cannot practise perfection, we devise every moment limits of its compromise in practice" - Mohandas Gandhi "Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench." - Buddha "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." - Arch-Bishop Dom Helder Camara and Mother Theresa

Hahah. I agree, Ben. There are abuses of the welfare system. However, the alternative of having no support for those who desperately need it is simply not acceptable. You're right. A very large group abuse the care and love we have for our fellow man, but to privatize that would be to leave the innocents out in the cold. I'd rather be cheated of a few dollars than do that. I wish there were a better way, but until I see that help as many people as the government does, I can't.

Hahah! I remember that game. I also remember "Throwing rocks at one another." And we were always so shocked when one of us got hurt we'd instantly scatter.

What about where it occurs naturally, Islander, like chocolate? In fact, refined sugars are highly addictive as well. Are they against the word of wisdom?

Yep. I believe in the terrible ideal that it is the government's job to take care of the less fortunate. (Insert dramatic music here). I am FunkyTown - SOCIALIST!

Hahah. You know I support taxation and social programs for the poor. Though I will admit that due to government bureaucracy far too much of that goes to bloat and corruption. In my ideal society, there would be minimal bloat and there would be an equality by consensus. Of course, in my ideal society, I'd be a shepherd on seaside cliffs, overlooking the ocean and smelling the salt air.

To err is human, to forgive: Bovine.

Deseret? Don't be concerned if someone says you're a communist. JohnBirchSociety would term me a socialist because I believe: 1) Companies are not inherently infallible or ethical. 2) Governments are not inherently infallible or ethical. 3) People are not inherently infallible or ethical. Therefore, I believe: 4) Companies must exist with checks and balances to protect the weak from the strong. This requires government oversight in to many things.

Regarding the flood, please read up traditional Jewish belief in cosmology. Here is one take on the flood by famed scholar Richard Elliott Friedman, interpreted through the scriptures: Gensis 1: 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. The universe is made in to two separate waters: The waters below(On earth) and the waters above(In the sky). Some might say this is proof of the bibles falsity. We know that the universe is a vacuum. What does the cold depths of space have to do with water? 1) They're both vast and unknowable. 2) They're both environments that are deadly to humans. 3) One is weightless in both environments. The environments are so similar, we even call the vessel that traverses both a 'ship'. Look at the story of Noah's Ark - There's a specific reason why they don't call it Noah's Ship. They call it an Ark for a reason: An Ark, like the Ark of the Covenant, is not a ship. The Jews did not build a boat to carry the Covenant with them through the desert, they built a box. It was a box built to carry things in. The Great Flood is not a lot of rain - Everything that breathed air died. If it was merely a lot of rain, how did butterflies(Which can fly for more than 30 days straight) die? Or Dolphins? Or Penguins? The Great Flood was the cataclysmic collapse of the atmosphere, where the waters above met the waters below. The atmosphere boiled away, sluicing off of the earth and removing its comfort and protection. It is the terrifying, absolute end of the world.

Well, there -is-, but it's selfish. "In a gold standard, any trade deficit results in the country with the deficit sending gold to make up the shortfall." Since the US has had a trade deficit for decades - And a very large one - You would face massive inflation if changing didn't make people smarten up with their buying. It also would result in a poorer nation overall, but be less inclined to horrid crashes(Though it would happen if people continued to consume as they do now). I'm not saying you're wrong in this, JBS(Though this may be the only thing we have ever agreed on on here), but I am saying it isn't as rosie as you're painting it.

Youtube!

You have hit the nail on the head for why I agree with the gold standard.

Seriously, Xenos. I know you love your Mom, but you aren't doing her any favors there. You need to get out of the house. There are many places to go for help. Have you considered speaking to your Bishop? He might be able to get you another place to live. I'm sure of it.

Actually, the Gold Standard would result in a lowered standard of living for many, but a raised standard of living for many others. Simply put: The more your country imports, the more gold that must be sent out to adjust the difference. This makes the monetary value of your government backed scrip ("Dollars" for instance) drop. When it drops, you can no longer afford those things from other countries, which means what -they- purchase from -you- worth much more. They will then make up the difference to you. The reason it failed earlier on is that the reaction to the market wasn't instant. With modern computers, that could be adjusted fairly easily. Because, currently, the US and China represent the largest consumers, this would work well to adjust the economies of the world. I may be biased, though, because so many countries purchase from Canada.

Hey! I'm movin' up to the UK, Sly. The church is pretty strong up there. Welcome!

Okay - I could take you a lot more seriously if you would quote your sources, JohnBirchSociety. Making sweeping statements as if they were proven fact does not work. "However, the greatest growth in human prosperity for all involved occured during the first 100 years of American History" - Quote source, and explain how the years from 1776 to 1886 were the most prosperous for all involved. Justify the Irish Ghettos and sweeping poverty in New York and major eastern seaboard states. Also be sure to take in to account that 'Western rushes' allowed people with no land to instantly become landowners and take that in to account when you bring forth your figures. In fact, the IPI center for tax analysis state that the greatest prosperity occurred around the year 2000. Please see: The ?Greatest Prosperity Ever?: "4) WWII was appropriate to the function of Government. We were facing a unified global attack on our freedom. In fact, the Empire of Japan did attack us and threaten property rights. Germany most likely would have, given the chance." Quote source on someone showing how Germany was a legitimate threat to the US. They lived halfway across the world and had to deal with Soviet aggression. Can you point to any attempted invasions of US soil or even plans to enact an invasion found after they were conquered? The Germans were meticulous in their record keeping. How could they have sustained a war with the US as well? Also, for Japan threatening US property rights, please see: WikiAnswers - Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor Under your beliefs, the US interference in trade generated this enemy. Also, they didn't threaten US property rights: They wanted to create a new order in East Asia. What they were hoping to accomplish by the attack was to scare the US and force them to sue for peace wherein they would be provided the oil they needed to maintain their war, since they lost 90% of the oil being provided to them. Essentially, Japanese Colonialism was being interfered with by the US, which is why they attacked. They didn't intend on invading the US, nor did they ever try to land on US soil. While they wanted Hawaii, Hawaii was not American at this point. For the year Hawaii joined the US, please see: WikiAnswers - In what year did hawaii join the US "4) Fines, again, are not unconstitutional. Secondly, I've not been able to find an instance of a hospital refusing immediately necessary life-saving care to any individual where such facilities exist. If they did, it would be morally wrong because it interfere's with the greater principle of right to life to a certain degree. This may be an instance where the force of government can be properly used to insure life at the cost of property. Life being superior to property. " - First off, let me say that you're correct. Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment in an emergency. Is cancer an emergency? Can they allow someone to waste away over a period of months and die if they don't have insurance? What about tuberculosis? And if you agree that health care is required for life, how do you pay for it without taxation? "2) The exploitation of people is contrary to property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Government to intervene." Justify this, please. How is a mining company setting up a mining town and offering to let people work for credit contrary to property rights? It's their property. As per your previous arguments, nobody is forcing them to work there. (No one person. Just circumstances and society). Same goes with giving maximum hours in a work-week, or poor workplace conditions. Nobody is forcing them to work there and a government mandate to force someone to change is interfering in their right of property. If you agree that this is justifiable to interfere in, at what point -isn't- it justifiable? We're talking about law here, so please be specific as people will always follow the letter rather than spirit. In conclusion, I can only state that I can not take your arguments seriously because you include unsupported opinion stated as fact. I believe your economic platform to be flawed, naive and hopelessly out of touch with reality. I will not argue this any further, because you are simply incorrect and your lack of supporting evidence when you make statements you couch as truth makes speaking with you frustrating and ultimately unfruitful. We will not agree, nor will we ever on this. I, like the rest of the world, will simply vote our conscience when issues like this come up.

How old are you? There're SA places. There are SA cruises, too.

Bottom line? If that were the only thing to consider, then yes. Since infrastructure, schooling and medicine also depend upon those same tax dollars, the only way to give it up is to give up public schooling, roads and available medicine.

Hmm... This is interesting. Taxation can only be used to protect the property rights of another individual? So let's see what that means: 1) No government created infrastructure - Roads, bridges, sea ports, lighthouses, airports and the like - They simply do not exist, except so far as private individuals have paid for and sanctioned their creation. This means most roads are now dirt roads, barring those exceptional places where a rich person/corporation has decided to pave a road. 2) A stripped down, nearly non-existent military - With few external enemies, the only purpose of the military is to defend the US from potential invaders Canada and Mexico. They are armed with guerilla style weaponry like the founding fathers as nothing else is necessary in defense of the nation. Perhaps they have armor piercing mines and a few rocket launchers as well in case armor comes in, though without infrastructure that would most likely not be a huge concern considering they would find it difficult to get around. 3) The Civil War was an illegal war - Stopping a state from seceding is an illegal action, since it has nothing to do with protection of property. In fact, the exact opposite could be true as it pushed to -end- slavery, which were considered property by their owners. 4) World War II was an illegal war - No American property was threatened by this war, not that it would have mattered as the US military would not have been the juggernaut it was because of previous cases. 5) (Insert every war the US has ever had except the War of Independence) was an illegal action, for the same reasons. I'm not sure how I feel about this take on it. To be honest, I can definitely see a plus side to this. It certainly does maintain an old west -feel- to it. Let's ignore the horrid treatment of the Natives and the fact that the US would have to be on whatever soil the natives hadn't claimed and we'll say that this inspired document allowed a much more holistic integration with the natives. Since it didn't happen, we don't know what -would- have happened. I had a big write-up claiming that California would not be part of the US, nor most of the North East, but I'm not a prophet and can't say for sure. When I put it down on paper the -definite- consequences, it sounds like it would make for a nation that had vast tracts of very simple living, punctuated by small cities of intense wealth. It does make me have a few questions, though: 1) How do you handle companies that use the lack of regulation to exploit the market? Look up the Sarnia Blob and see how many chemicals the plants dumped in our waters. In fact, now those same companies are keeping the plants open unto perpetuity with a skeleton staff simply because it's cheaper than closing down and having to pay for clean-up. If the government can't fine you(Because that's taking away property) and the government would be required to put down a group of disgruntled people trying to run chemical companies out of town(Since they're trying to deprive a private individual of property), how would that be dealt with? 2) How would you handle companies that exploited workers? Saying that workers don't have to work there is simplistic. People died developing the railroads, children as young as 7 were maimed in factories and the mines and many people out of desperation for work agreed to labour for -credit-, which meant that they were plunged deeper and deeper in debt for every day of work. That's a simple, undeniable fact and it happened in the US prior to regulation stopping it. 3) Since printing money is unconstitutional(There are costs to print money that can only be gathered through taxation, and the printing of money is not required to protect property), do you see any issues coming about because only private, corporate sponsored scrip would be printed? 4) How would you handle a hospital that turned away a man who was beaten and robbed and left for dead because they had no money(After all, they were just robbed)? You can't fine them(It's unconstitutional) and you can't force them to treat the patient(Ditto)? Is that simply one of the costs of doing business in the land of the free? From what I can see, Unions seem to be the answer to poor workplace conditions. Since the government attempted to put down Unions(Unconstitutionally) early on in their life, I could see that the union would have far more power since there would be no government regulation. There may be a normalization. All those other things - The crushing poverty compared to today, lack of infrastructure and the like - Would you consider the benefits to outweigh the losses?

You're absolutely right, JBS! Theft is wrong - Really wrong. Scriptures are clear on that. But taxation is fine. After all, here's the quote: 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. So, I agree - Theft is wrong. Taxation is not theft. In fact, if you're going to look at that scripture, he's -specifically saying- that taxation is okay. SPECIFICALLY. Your interpretation of the Doctrine and Covenants aside, people in Christ's day believed what you were saying. They were wrong. Jesus showed them this. THE SAVIOUR is saying that taxation is different from theft, unless you're saying Jesus sanctions theft.