Underseer
Contributor
Even a very stupid and uneducated person could poke holes in the Noah story. I don't think they're stupid, I think they're indoctrinated.
-
Features
Ken Ham's Momunent to Stupidity
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
Even a very stupid and uneducated person could poke holes in the Noah story. I don't think they're stupid, I think they're indoctrinated.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Joe didn't say anything about stupid.
It's not a matter of stupid or education or the ability to think critically, if they're not moved TO think critically about a subject.
It doesn't matter how well the brain works if you refuse to turn it on and use it.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,352
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
But this is the crux of it all. It is the critical thinking. Some people make themselves think they can resolve the alleged problems. Some lie to themselves showing how they prove the existence of god using a grammatical proof. Others, by mentioning people and robots. They are trying to think critically, but they have a preconceived notion they refuse to deter from.
Ken Ham (or his lawyer) may have a point
To bring the thread back to the OP, more or less....
The argument is over AIG's "tax increment financing" application. This is a mechanism whereby the state agrees for a certain period to allocate to a proposed economic development project some portion of various taxes (certainly sales, perhaps income) the state collects that adhere to the project. That is, the project's developers can use a certain portion of the taxes that in the absence of the project would not be collected because the sales made and salaries paid by the project would not exist.
This typically allows the project's backers to obtain financing at lower rates since their projected income stream is enhanced. If the projected income does not materialize, the lenders or project backers are on the hook - the state does not have to pony up any money.
I gather AIG's argument is that there's nothing in the law that restricts TIF projects to for-profit entities, and they've complied with all the requirements for the application.
To bring the thread back to the OP, more or less....
The argument is over AIG's "tax increment financing" application. This is a mechanism whereby the state agrees for a certain period to allocate to a proposed economic development project some portion of various taxes (certainly sales, perhaps income) the state collects that adhere to the project. That is, the project's developers can use a certain portion of the taxes that in the absence of the project would not be collected because the sales made and salaries paid by the project would not exist.
This typically allows the project's backers to obtain financing at lower rates since their projected income stream is enhanced. If the projected income does not materialize, the lenders or project backers are on the hook - the state does not have to pony up any money.
I gather AIG's argument is that there's nothing in the law that restricts TIF projects to for-profit entities, and they've complied with all the requirements for the application.