Thing is though there is no point where a animal suddenly has lungs compared to its parent that didn't have lungs. Its just a series of much much smaller changes that leads to that development.

Nope.

Your ignoring the fact that I do believe in evolution.

It would be possible to have a universe where only "minor" evolution existed though... with nothing largely effecting the more major systems.

There is much more difference gentically in a breed of dogs being slower then there is a breed of dogs having wings.

Oops, hahahaha, I thought you were arguing against evolution, I misread. :P

lol.

Let me ask you this.

I have had this discussion with you 2 or 3 times now. We talk about how you view the world should be. There are many people who don't agree with me, but NONE of then have come to the defense of your views.

Your views are not liberal, they are just crazy talk from your head. Find one post where people come to your defense?

Akuma is well educated, and has opposite views of mine on what role government should play in peoples lives. He is the last person that would come to my defense when arguing fiscal responsibilities of government. If you don't respect my opinion, you might respect his.

Message him and tell him how you think the world should run, and he will call you as much of a nut job as me.

This, is why I call you a party of one.

Not true... there is a much larger difference in something such as lungs.  Even small changes to lungs or gills then there is in something such as changing size or color of skin.

my views are not crazy at all, to me they make sense, im in favour of a socialised healthcare and education system, like we have here in the UK now (Only i think they can be improved upon) and Proggressive taxation (ALOT of Liberals are in favour of PT, ive even been to talks about it) i like the idea of Utopia and think it should be the ultimate goal of humanity, i dont think thats crazy, i think it makes sense, i accept that we arent there yet, but i think my ideas would help get us as close as is possible in the modern world, my other views are very commonplace as well, im Pro-Choice, Anti-Death Penalty, Pro Seperation of Church and State, Pro Legalisation of Drugs, Pro-Euthanasia, Pro-Welfare State and more that i cant think of at this precise moment, im not Crazy, im just Very Liberal and im a Socialist, so are many people, is it my fault that there either not on these forums or they dont want to debate you?

highwaystars point was that people like you, kasz, halogamer and tyranical make having my economic views unacceptable on these forums, maybe others dont post because they dont want to get into a long debate with you guys and feel they would be outnumbered as i am, have you ever considered that?

1) Not a good arguement.  Even crazy peoples views make sense to themselves.

2) Which Utopia?  There are many different kinds. 

3) Pro Progressive taxation isn't a part of any of the Utopian societies i've ever seen presented.  They're either "No money at all" and you just work the jobs you like.... or "Libretarian Utopia" where there are little to no taxes.

1. Ok, thats fair enough, lol, but that said, how do you know your not the crazy ones?

2. probably whichever one is closest to my own views

3. you really dont ever read all of my post do you?

"i accept that we arent there yet, but i think my ideas would help get us as close as is possible in the modern world"

maybe you should read that part again

Except Progressive Taxation actually does the exact opposite.

The basis of any Utopion society is an enlightened people.

Progressive Taxation retards the sense of good will being the responsibility of the person and places the burden on the state.

As such, people would never get to the state where they beleive that the rich should give more for the common good.  Instead the view that the government should take more from the rich for the common good prevails.   A very different and very important distinction.

For an egalitarian utopia to work... the rich need to give more, not have more taken from them since the ultimate goal would be to mimimize government because everyone would belive this.

The rise of authortarain socialism was in response to the belief that the rich would never become enlightened.  Which seems to be a view you hold, yet claim to not be an authortarian liberal.

Marx however would of never forseen capitalism, upward mobility and just how generous people have gotten since. 

People are on the right steps towards it... but progressive taxation and your attempts to force your ideals through govenrment and forcing on a minority of the majority rather then true ideal and change through enlightenment.

In reality you would be more likely to create a dystopia.

The belief that people can grow into what would be needed to form a true utopia needs to allow for people to grow into those people.  Trying to force the matter can't work.

oh i think you misunderstand, im thinking of a Utopia were money doesent exist (as we have technology that provides everything we need) im not an authoritarian either btw (as ive said like a million times, but you never listen)