Anyone with half a brain will agree that the immigration law (SB1070) passed by Arizona is completely idiotic, and has no basis for existence since illegal immigration is in no way a problem in the United States.
The idiocy of this law is proven by the thousands of illegal immigrant protestors who have taken to the streets in the past weeks opposing the racist law passed by a racist state.
Everyone would agree that just because someone enters a country illegally (which is a Federal crime) doesn’t mean that they give up the right to demand, and receive, the same welcome as those immigrants who take painstaking measures to enter the U.S. legally.
The U.S. is a country of immigrants, and as such should without question accept anyone who has the guts to cross the border with or without the proper papers. In fact, the original settlers were the original illegal immigrants. It’s just like legal precedence–illegal immigrants have the right to settle a land that they have no right to; it has been done once, so it’s ok to do it again.
Anybody out there?!
The question asking whether there is other intelligent life in the Universe outside of the planet Earth is ridiculous. There are only two possibilities when it comes to intelligent life outside of our solar system.
One possibility is that humanity and all life on Earth are a result of evolution, and the chances of the same type of evolutionary progress happening elsewhere in the Universe are so slim that it’s not even statistically significant. Just because there are billions of galaxies, it does not mean that there has to be another planet that can sustain life, much less intelligent life. Our blue orb is just a unique anomaly.
The second possibility is that the Universe and everything in it was created by an all-powerful being, which most monotheistic religions believe to be a unique creation. So this Universe also only has one planet with life.
With this knowledge at hand, World governments and private companies can now stop wasting money on trying to find other planets that can sustain life, or to listen to find signals from distant civilizations.
Is this child abuse?
There is much said about the importance of spending time with your children; however, no one ever discusses the potential of creating a debilitating dependency in your child by spending too much time with them.
It is very important to develop a sense of self-sufficiency and independence in your children, and the best way to do this is by providing them a means of occupying themselves without the care and supervision of a parent. For example, you can purchase expensive toys for them that can keep their attention for several hours, soon after which they will require something new to hold their attention.
Parents who spend hours with their children every day, are condemning them to a life of low self esteem and a life spent looking for the type of attention they won’t get from strangers. Sure, if you spend hours on end playing with your child, she will not get tired of you, and will in fact thrive (in the short term) on the love and nurturing you provide. But that is not the grim reality of the outside world, where everyone is out for themselves.
So do yourself and, more importantly, your child a favor and buy them the PlayStation that will keep them busy and away from you, so that you may save them from a life of misery when they grow up.
What was wrong with her?
Helping people other than those in our family and circle of friends is extremely overrated. Other than feeling good (which is also debatable), what benefit is it to you or me if we help someone who we’ll most likely never see again. Why would you go out of your way to help someone push a stalled car to a gas station, or pay for a portion of someone else’s groceries because he is 27 cents short? It’s not as if when you are in need someone else will not be willing to help you out because you didn’t help someone else in need when you had the chance. The would be good Samaritan would help you regardless, since she doesn’t know that you ignored someone in need the week before.
Helping strangers in need is wasted time and energy when you are the person providing assistance. That energy and effort could be put towards something that will benefit you instead of a wayward motorist, for example.
Perfect fit!
Let us imagine a situation where your father was murdered brutally, and the killer was apprehended and put on trial. A conviction was obtained quickly, in the absence of any mental issues present in the killer. How would you want the judge to sentence the killer?
a. Life without the possibility of parole
b. Death by (pick whatever means you would like)
Now after having answered that question, imagine that the killer was your mother. Does that change your answer? Was your initial choice wrong?
William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905)
What if you are wrong, and there is no God? Would you live any differently? Would you be a different person? If your moral actions are solely based on your fear of the wrath of God, are you morally sound at all? If this is you, then why would you think that a just God would reward a person because he was able to suppress his immorality to avoid punishment? Do we not tell our children to not cheat because they are cheating themselves? So why does no one preach true morality instead of using fear mongering to force morality through the threat of hell and eternal suffering?
What if you are wrong and your belief system condemns you to the very hell you are trying to avoid?
Imagine this scenario. Within 50 years the latest ice age will start to set in, and all the efforts put into stopping global warming will have been in complete opposition to what would have been good for humanity.
What we know is that global temperatures have risen on average over the past few decades. As some skeptics point out, this warming may be due to events that are not man-made, and not the direct result of carbon emissions. What if this is true? Does this mean we should go back to producing more carbon fuel consuming vehicles and machinery? Does it mean that we can indiscriminately cut down forests and ignore the damage being caused to sea life?
The argument for controlling global temperatures is possibly flawed, and is easily described as a scare-tactic for those whose interests are not in line with the proponents of global warming. But why would anyone want to scare people into thinking that global warming is real and man-made? Is it more likely that World governments are conspiring to enslave all humanity under a new world order? Or is it more likely that scientists and governments are using this tactic to gain support for a green revolution which can potentially bring about a technological renaissance while at the same time cleaning the planet of the man-made filth that no one can deny?
Regardless of what the motives behind this green movement, the result is going to be cleaner air and better technology. I’d like to see someone argue against that.
It’s a very simple question. “What if you are wrong?”
Why look at things just as they are?
Let’s embark together on a journey of discovery, self-examination, and education.
I hope that you will enjoy the ride.
