I know my parents weren't passing on 90% of their income to the government, thor. I mentioned my time there, if you read my post again, to point out my opportunities, not for observing the political situation (which is unlikely to be relevant to today's Europe), but to observe the national culture, which is something that changes more slowly.But I suspect it's most likely that your friends were merely being hyperbolical.
-
Cons vs Libs
-
Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: OldFolks Originally Posted By: thorIt's not ucommon for certain folks to think it doesn't exist if it can't be proven by human beings...which would make it fall into the category of "what we would like to believe"; because there are many (athiests, mostly) who would like to believe we humans have all the answers. We are, after all, the greatest creature in the universe...right? (Please say you can note the sarcasm)No...there are plenty of things, many of them extraordinary, that lay beyond our ability to prove or disprove. You may continue to bow to your own God of Science...I will continue to use science as a tool; which is all that it really is. What the hell does any of this have to do with some god or atheists? The point is, it takes more than one simple anecdote from one couple to lend any validity to such an extraordinary claim of taxation. Without corroborating verifiable facts tall tails of such taxation are just that. These were friends of friends, who had no reason to lie and no purpose, such as Ineligible suggested, to put on airs. Now, who would you believe...the people who have to pay, or the government who collects the taxes? Think about it. Which would you be more inclined to trust? (Hint: In a socialist nation, all stats are made - and therefor controlled - by the government.) hmmmmmm.... who would I believe?? someone who, over the internet, talks about some tall tale that some friends of friends told him? or hard evidence and actual factual statistics of what the tax rate in the country actually is. I'll take the maximum 52% tax rate statistic.
-
I think it's become a bit antiquated to refer to Evolution/Natural Selection as a theory.When every last shred of real evidence leads to only one sensible conclusion, why refer to it as a theory?
-
many people mistake the true scientific definition of a theory for the every day use of the word. A scientific theory is not the same type of theory used in every day language. Many people take "theory" to mean something that has very little or no evidence. They use the word as if it is just an opinion or a guess. But a scientific theory is practically as close as you can get to actually proving something. Something in science is only called a thoery after it has been supported by mounds of evidence, and there is no evidence that refutes it. A theory is something that is supported by all experiments and tests that have been conducted, and all evidence and data that there is. Many theories are practically proven fact (including the Theory of Evolution). For example, gravity is "just" a thoery. And then there is the "Theory" of Relativity. Evolution has gotten as close to being proven as anything in science can get. The entire field of biology is based off the the Theory of Evolution. So the argument that Evolution is "just a theory" does not hold up in a scientist's court. It's not an argument at all. It's an argument based on the ignorance of the definition of the word "theory."
-
I understand what you mean but let's not confuse the theoretical bits with the fact bits. We know there is gravity, where the theory come in is figuring out how it works. It's an amazing force, strong enough to affect the entire universe yet weak enough to be defeated buy a baby lifting a toy.
We know evolution is a fact, the theories and continued research are figuring out how all the pieces fit together (as well as finding new pieces)
no room for _poof theory_ though :smile:
