I hope you can realize this is a false equivalency, but maybe you can’t?

2. The workers get paid, they get value out of it, they aren’t slaves.

3. The company wouldn’t exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

Look at a company like Blockbuster. With a better owner they could have changed their position to stay around as a company, but the owner made bad choices. If there was no owner what would have happened? It probably would have failed even quicker because there is nobody making decisions and most employees probably didn’t see the wiring on the wall until it was too late.

A good owner would have seen the direction the market was going and changed the company to prepare. Netflix has been fighting this fight for a while now, switching from streaming other’s content to making their own content. Without an owner they would have died a long time ago.

So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

Yes to taking away wealth or the way to leverage it?

1. So all those times I’ve gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

2. Of course they do, I don’t expect a given employee who isn’t the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

3. So what? What’s your point?

Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.

Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.

As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.

At least among most Atheists it’s defined as lack of belief. It’s also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.

Theist is usually defined as “with belief”, so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).

The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.

Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of “do you have knowledge that a God exists”. Atheist/Theist answers the question of “do you have belief that a God exists”.

I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.

Just to be clear, I define Atheism as “without belief in a God”, that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.

I never understood why some people take one comment of “I don’t agree with that criticism” and think you are some diehard fanboy? I don’t like Apple, I don’t like Tesla or Elon Musk, but sometimes I disagree with some criticism they get and basically every single time someone thinks I must be a loyal fan.

I’m sure there are those who will or could make great use of USB3 speeds, but I think like 99% of the users won’t notice the difference because they just don’t use it. I know I’ve never used USB for data transfer in my last couple Android phones, I only use it for charging and even that is greatly reduced since I mainly use wireless charging now.

I feel like not many people actually use the data port on their phones anymore, I know I haven’t used my android USB port for anything other than fast charging for I feel like 10 years. Do you even use the data connector on your phone?

He bought a small dying company and turned it into the most valuable one they ever existed. He made the Tesla we know today.

He made the Tesla we know today, the Tesla we know today would not have existed without Musk, it likely would have died a small silicon valley startup that nobody had ever heard of.

Just because I hate him doesn’t mean I won’t give him credit for doing what he did.

As much as I hate Musk, I doubt something that ambitious would be tried without him or someone like him. Same with starting a fully EV car company when everyone thought we were just but ready for it. Yes the engineers are the ones who do the work, but it takes someone willing to risk a lot of money, and the ability to bring in more money, to make that stuff happen.

In all honesty, it sounds nice and I am not against the idea, but I really have a hard time seeing it having any measurable effect.

That’s an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in.