- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Tafadzwa, thank you for encouraging me to be more precise. I understand your concern about using the term “right” to remember. Actually, I spoke in that way intentionally. First, from my point of view, rights exist even if we don’t give them a specific label. Just because a right does not have a known name it does not mean that right does not exist. In this case, when we are talking about remembering, I think we are facing the “establishment” of a new right that does not yet have a popularized name. I called that “nameless right” as the “right to remember”. Second, in practice, you can see the widespread of the recognition of the right to remember through by the judicial rulings or the political acts of the government. Although judges or politicians do not refer explicitly to right to remember, in practice, they are doing it. The public memorialization would be a proof of that recognition. Maybe the memorial practices have been carried out on behalf of other rights, as truth and guarantee of non-recurrence. But in the end, we are building a sort of distinct right, the “right to remember”. Actually, in strict sense, I do not consider remembering just as a part of the right to truth or of the guarantee of non- recurrence. According to Mendez, the right to truth can be described as a “State obligation to reveal to the victims and society everything known about the facts and circumstances of massive and systematic human rights violations of the past, including the identity of the perpetrators and instigators”. It does not necessarily include the memorial practices or maybe just in an extended perspective on the basis that telling the truth belongs not only to the disclosure ground but rather memorializing ground. In terms of “right to remember” as part of the guarantee of non- recurrence, I think that to remember is not a necessary means to achieve non- recurrence. For instance, if that were true, the Holocaust in the Second World War would have prevented the genocide in Rwanda. I put on the table those examples just for arguing that we are facing an emerging right, “the right to remember”. And currently, in practice, both victims as State are recognizing that remembrance expresses intrinsically valuable attitudes. That I why, I canvas, we are seeing several examples in which Governments are covering the victim's claims related to memorial practices. (This is an argument under construction, so I will happily receive all the feedback.)
I don't see any death camps for Mexicans and Arabs around.
Cherry-picking one difference between Trump and Hitler isn't going to diminish the hundreds of similarities. Not even the Nazis created death camps in their first two years of power, you buffoon. They emerged around ten years later, after they had consolidated power by convincing idiots like yourself that they weren't really Nazis.
Furthermore, your video propagates the fallacy that the left is calling everyone Hitler. The left is calling Trump Hitler. Trump is not everyone. Therefore, your video is Nazi propaganda.
If you are attempting to argue that Donald Trump is not a racist then that's quite a mountainous hill of lies to try to scale.
You are talking about a guy who was literally put under federal investigation for housing discrimination against blacks. There are thousands -- I say again, THOUSANDS -- of documents implicating him as a racist. That's not even counting anything he's ever said.
I say tomatoes, you say tomahtos.
Who the fuck has ever called them tomahtos?
You and I BOTH know that Whitaker would NOT approve ANY indictment against ANY subject of the probe.
No, we really don’t. Sessions was an early Trump supporter, and an honest AG. If the news told you ahead of time that Sessions would act this or that way, you would say “you and I BOTH know (parrot headline)”, but it wouldn’t be true.
Mueller KNEW that Sessions would be fired and the ONLY way to catch these lawbreakers was to INDICT them BEFORE an indictment could be blocked..
Or maybe everything is proceeding exactly as it would anyway. Maybe not. You and I both know that if there is a big indictment, you will say you knew all along, but if there is no big indictment, you will cry foul (after the news gives you that opinion).
I believe that I did answer that question (at the time) and you are simply lying.
Actually, you deflected the question first into a straw man argument claiming that I wanted to shoot anyone I felt victimized by, then waxed poetic about there being no such thing as the black-and-white "good guy versus bad guy". None of which, of course, is in any way helpful when someone has opened your door with a sledgehammer and clearly intends to use it to cave in your skull, or is otherwise expressing opportunity, capability and intent to commit violence on you or yours. But you're welcome to try again any time.
Indeed, you began this post by making up stuff.
Nothing I've said can't be backed up with a google search. But I'll be happy to post sources if that's what you demand. Cite some specific examples if you want.
You on the other hand believe these people should be sold guns, just so you can also have a gun with which to protect yourself against them!! There is no combination of words you can use which will make that argument rational.
Ideal? No. But far more rational than your plan to simply take away the guns without inciting the second civil war. And why would that civil war take place? Why won't people just bend over and give their guns up peacefully? Maybe because you've given utterly no consideration to the fact that simply hoping you can take away the guns so we can hold hands and frolic through the fucking daisies provides no guarantee that someone without regard for the law won't still be able to get their hands on a gun. Or that someone with violent intent is no less dangerous without one (or even more, if they bother to google "how to make an IED"). OR that you've removed a considerable inhibition for them to commit violent crimes, that being, that it's now near impossible for a law abiding citizen to effectively fight back.
Nope, take away the guns. That'll make everyone less violent. Are you on crack?
The person he replied to was the one who threatened a war.
A war that Swalwell is willing to intentionally incite in the supposed name of "your protection", and can't hope to win unless he uses nukes, for reasons already stated (and unsurprisingly, ignored).
I can see why you get downvoted so much now.
I vote down my own posts.
video games help in critical thinking skills. But did you also know that games like Super Mario Bros helps in training you brain in quick thinking skills, Example questions like: whats your name? you might think that thats a simple question and you might be telling your self ''I have answered this correctly my hole life, what do you mean''. but some people while they do answer correctly they take some time thinking for a obvios question.
Also games like street fighter or super smash brothers whitch are both real time fighter games, help in quick reaction time. Like if some one punches you, you will be able to dodge him more easily, and quickly.