CreateDebate


ThePyg's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of ThePyg's arguments, looking across every debate.
0 points

Pornography is not the same as sexual immorality.

What is your definition of "sexual immorality?"

-1 points

there would likely be various agencies with various ways to obtaining their opinions. It is to the discretion of the populace to judge what is trustworthy and what isn't. Not perfect, but more trustworthy than something like the EPA which is funded through stolen money.

-1 points

A major problem is that it's a powerful monopoly on the business of "protecting" the environment. People naturally believe that the environment is safe when the EPA approves of a product or action because they hold little reason to question the public sector.

There's no accountability when the EPA makes a mistake or continues a dangerous method. Instead of people actually wondering what is and isn't safe, they see the EPA as their only reassurance that the environment is in good hands. They wash their own hands of the responsibility of protecting their environment.

The same could be said for the FDA and various public regulation agencies.

0 points

If we wanted to compare Communist Dictatorships to Nazi dictatorships, I'd vote Communist.

However, the ideology of Communism is not worse than Nazism. Communism specifically goes against government, against property and money, against competition, religion, etc. Nazism is an extreme form of Fascism, purporting ethnic cleansing and executions of anyone deemed unworthy (including political dissidents.) There is no real argument here.

Stalinism and Maoism are, in ways, forms of Fascism and Statism. They purport a Socialist distribution of resources while also creating a ruling class (Democratic or not) and a non-ruling class. The ideologies support authoritarianism while Communism (in the Marxist sense) is against theoretically all hierarchy. As well, there's a major hostility towards so-called Capitalist (wealthy men that work with government in exploiting the lower class).

I could go on and on, but Stalin and Mao's rule were not actually Marxist Communism. They were "state" Communism, dictatorships, etc. Statism is bad in any form.

-1 points

I remember our last few debates were pretty hostile.

I should have been the better one and just not use insults, but w/e.

All in all, I can only recall our vile nature of debate. We probably agreed on more shit earlier, but maybe not.

I think I also just said things because I knew it would piss her off.

She's gone now. Sure I had something to do with it, or maybe she just got bored of CD.

1 point

Yeah, sales were pretty low since Xbox360 was less money at the time.

eventually the prices went down, bundles were provided, etc.

People who buy things when they first come out tend to just have a butt-load of money to blow. I don't, so i take my time. not like i care that much anyway.

1 point

Supply and Demand.

Although, the playstation 4 is $400 (once they stock stores again).

Cheaper than the ps3 when it first came out (600).

1 point

What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.

As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.

Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.

Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.

In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.

The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)

The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)

A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."

1 point

What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.

As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.

Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.

Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.

In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.

The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)

The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)

A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."

ThePyg(6738) Clarified
1 point

but I'm quite sure children with guns kill far more people with guns than children without guns do.

Then bringing up Somalia was an ignorant tactical ploy.

I'm not overly committed to debating you on the subject.

Based on your statements so far, this makes sense.

I'm more of a debate with Jesus nuts rather than gun nuts kinda guy.

Your lack of confidence to protect beliefs in gun-control is understandable. Gun-control is irrational and often a contradiction in terms.

1 point

Oh? What is their percentage of children killing others or themselves with a gun compared to their neighboring countries?

Or is Somalia the only country in Africa that is facing violence and poverty?

1 point

In this world where everything is owned by the wealthy and powerful, an arbitrary measure of worker capability is made by a standardized and lowly creative system called "schooling."

It is lucky enough for us that we are at least allowed to homeschool in quite a few states, but the very predicament that neighborhoods are forced to 40 hour work weeks, mortgage and taxes, and various regulatory laws on the issues of their children's education is enough to impede even the capability or even realization that public schooling is a cancer on their developmental potential.

They only care about getting a job for a random corporation so that they can somehow make it to a slightly safer neighborhood instead of the neighborhood getting together to better their impoverished areas.

State Capitalism is much like a collectivist nightmare, ironically. Working for the good of society as opposed to the good of themselves and close friends and family.

1 point

Children are better parented by their parents than they are by bureaucrats and legislators.

This perverted sense of interfering with the various practices of individuals is kind of annoying. Children would not typically "bear arms" as parents do. But a restriction on that ability is in itself immoral and opens up the ability for government to disrupt the family setting. It may very well be better for society for parents to train their kids the proper use of firearms and to even allow them to carry a gun if they see fit. Legislating this is simply paranoia of the potential, nothing more.

1 point

Simple summary of my view:

"It is not a question of who will allow me; it is a question of who will stop me."

-Ayn Rand

Rebuttal for more specific points on my view of this.

2 points

I'm waiting just because I don't even have time and money to invest into video games anymore.

I will eventually when they're cheaper and have more options.

1 point

Nah man, big pharma.

---------------------------------------------------

Big Pharma
1 point

They can't be worse than Obama, so if they had support I'd vote for them.

1 point

It was a joke.

-----------------------------------------------------

1 point

My sister has autism but I don't love her.

-----------------------------------------

3 points

What we call "the lowest common denominator."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 points

Atheism by itself has no cause. Atheists simply don't believe in God.

New Atheists are people that tend to dislike religion in many aspects and also criticize believers for being irrational in their beliefs.

I don't necessarily agree with most of what they have to say, but I don't really see them as a problem. They will tend to be more highlighting of the issues that the religious can present, while I only go after religious problems after I've come to notice them in the first place. New Atheists may be a bit extreme for my taste, but they're a bit useful.

2 points

This question represents the failed institution of monogamy and dating.

Children grow-up to believe that dating is a necessary aspect of finding your "soul-mate" and continue this patriarchal and restricting system.

We should all love each other and not limit it to be "in love" with some "one".

That being said, when you spend a certain amount of time with a girl and you all of a sudden can't stop thinking about her and constantly want to be around her and can envision yourself being with her for a long time, you've probably fallen "in love."

But love is an illusion. It's a construct. That euphoria you get is a neurotransmitter. You don't need these promises of long-term in order to secrete the neurotransmitter.

2 points

From the little I see of his shit he's a cunt.

On a scale of Al Franken (1) to John Stossel (10), I give him a 3.

1 point

I think most regulations on marijuana that follow the legalization of marijuana will show just how terrible government truly is, regardless of whether they FINALLY make something legal or not.


1 of 255 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]