CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › swiftwolf202 › Posts

Posts by swiftwolf202

5 posts shown.

link to article http://www.nytimes.com/bicycle-safety-news/710066/

excerpt from the article:

Cyclists are allowed on sidewalks, but only if they stay within the designated bike lanes. On the road, they need to stick to marked lanes or stay as close to the right shoulder as possible. Riding in groups isn't allowed either: the fine for that is $100. If it turns out they've been drinking or are using a cell phone while riding, they'll be hit with a $167 penalty.

There are 160 kilometers of bike paths throughout Washington, D.C.

962 traffic accidents involving cyclists over the last 3 years

16 fatalities since 2007

710 injuries in three years

$667 fine for a rider operating a bike while fatigued, ill, or in an impaired physical or mental state

$167 fine for cell phone use while riding or riding under the influence of alcohol

$100 the fine for "no-hands" riding or cycling at night without a reflective vest is
Is permanent happiness actually possible? in Philosophy ·
William Gonzalez3 said:bringing your desires into reality.


That’s only true if you mean that ideas come from the brain's natural instinct to finish a synthesis it already started—I've already made that point once before.

So just give me something concrete here. I can't see where your questions are even heading...
Is permanent happiness actually possible? in Philosophy ·
stands for = focuses on the ideal
Is permanent happiness actually possible? in Philosophy ·
Reasoning basically takes everything we pick up through our senses and those built-in mental frameworks—our perceptions and thoughts—and starts connecting the dots. It takes concepts, weighs them against each other, finds the relationship between them, and draws a conclusion. That’s how reason operates. But then you have the intellect, which sits above mere reasoning. It tries to do the exact same thing—to explain things like God or true, lasting peace—but it hits a wall. It can't, because it's dealing with ideal ideas. It keeps trying to reach a final conclusion, but it simply lacks the capacity to get there... You could say, following Tom's logic, that the idea of God or perfection comes from concluding based on the inherent limitations of being, which eventually leads you toward something perfect.
Is permanent happiness actually possible? in Philosophy ·
How are you supposed to find lasting peace when you're living such a temporary existence? How can you ever grasp anything permanent if you yourself aren't? Honestly, just having the concept of "forever" in your head is basically the absolute limit of what the rational mind can handle. But trying to actually realize it? That's impossible. Using logic to chase permanence is just chasing an illusion... and because you're stuck using that flawed reasoning, all you get is a fake version of stability. You’ll never actually reach the real thing because you can't even be sure it exists in the first place. It's pretty simple, really.🙂