Haha, alright calm down. I'll stick to the subject.............

Hahaha...I'm pretty sure most Chicanos have more important things to worry about than attacking gays who decide to get married.

Look at California. There are plenty of Mexicans and plenty of gay people there, yet I haven't seen any lynchings.

Yeah that's partly what happened with blacks in California with prop 8. So how about we hold off on this plan until we get a supreme court decision that guarantees gays the right to marry. Sound good?

This is the first one of your debates I have agreed with Joe. You've stumbled upon a great idea. I have one addition though:

Since illegals apparently hate Mexico (they'd do anything to leave after all), we should get more Mexicans in the U.S. Now all we have to do is find a large number of Mexicans who want to live in the U.S. Any ideas where we could find that Señor?

Faith is belief in that which there is no evidence for. How can your faith strengthen by arguing...wouldn't argument cause you to be more secure in your logical understanding of religion, making faith less necessary?

What do atheists struggle with?

No, you did not invent the media stereotype.

Of course not, but I had something very specific in mind when I said media stereotype.

Is there something more profound in rap than I am missing?

There is in the song I was referring to, and numerous other songs. I'd be happy to give some examples and explain why there is more.

Also there are plenty of good rappers who aren't black... you are aware of this right?

Yes, maybe he should. I'm sure it would be much more popular. It doesn't matter. Everything loses its authenticity when misheard.

Most people who listen to his music don't mishear what he said. It's not difficult to understand if you try and listen a little.

If you go into a song expecting to dislike it, then probably you won't hear the lyrics right.

Why do you need to know this?

I don't, just curious. If you're not comfortable telling me then no worries.

That joke was funny when I heard it the first time.

But if you want to steal jokes and base whole debates off them, I guess I can't stop you.

Ughhhh...I'm not getting into another argument about liberals with you. I give up, you are beyond reasoning with.

Congrats on finding the only people on earth who think Nickelback are better than the Beatles. I may have taken their position more seriously though if they spelled Nickelback right.

I've already argued with EnigmaticMan, I don't plan on doing it twice. If you have any original opinions present them. Otherwise don't waste my time.

Rap is becoming common to use as background noise in film...

Sorry if I don't consider you knowledgeable because you heard it in a couple movies.

Definition of "song"

Semantics...you know what I meant.

Is that not what rap is?

Here is throat-singing. I actually saw a pretty cool documentary about it. I'm still of the opinion that it sounds awful though.

But that makes a world of difference...

And I like the way that they are delivered...love it in fact. My only point was that since we obviously aren't going to agree on that, we should concentrate on something that is less reliant on subjective musical tastes.

Then why doesn't the radio play better songs?

Ask the people who own the radio stations. A lot of time popular opinion of songs is pretty bad. People don't always want to listen to music with intellectual meanings, but would rather hear someone talking about their gold studded teeth.

Ice T

He was pretty good back in the day. No one of my favorites though.

If you are interested in listening to a couple rap songs I consider good, I also posted Get By by Talib Kweli. Or don't if you don't want to.

I did. I liked it, somewhat; however, EnigmaticMan had a terrific response to your interpretation.

Once again, get an original opinion about the song, or my interpretation of it and we can talk.

The most meaningful lyrics, if badly written, are of little value.

Fortunately "Dumb it Down" is written amazingly well.

Well, then my interpretation of media stereotype is better.

Your interpretation of what I said is better than my own...okay, sure.

As am I.

Black rapper, and drumbeat...real deep analysis.

Honestly, that was very unintelligent. I could barely understand the lyrics, and furthermore, I did catch multiple swear words (which undoubtedly fits the media stereotype of rap).

If you want the lyrics, here they are.

The swearing you heard was satirical. Lupe wasn't the one swearing, but instead it was another rapper who was supposed to represent mainstream rap.

If you actually tried to understand the song next time then maybe I wouldn't have to sit you down like a child and explain it to you.

Well congratulations to Lupe! Unfortunately, I could not understand half of what he said, so in actuality, it was rather pointless.

Maybe he should make it into a sing-a-long with the words at the bottom and a bouncing ball. Would you understand it then? Probably not? Well, I don't know if I can help you there.

Out of curiosity what type of music do you like?

Short and distilled for your pleasure.

First:

You've convinced me, New York is a very well written song with meanings that are beyond superficial. I did about a poor a job interpreting that as you did with "Dumb it Down."

2nd:

The first fact does nothing to diminish how well written "Dumb it Down is"

3rd

Funny you should criticize "Dumb it Down" for being based on culture when "New York" does the same.

4th

If you are bigoted against blacks and black culture then I guess there is nothing I can say that will convince you that good music can be produced from these people.

5th

While the lyrics of many rappers are meaningless, I don't use this as an excuse to throw out the whole genre. Were this the case then there would likely be few genres I could listen to.

6th

Free-styling is when someone plays a beat and someone raps to it without anything written down beforehand. It's like improv, but with rap.

7th

I laughed when you said that "All Along the Watchtower" was your first choice. At least we have some common ground.

8th

I enjoy the music of other cultures, even if I don't fully understand them. I've listened to cuban hip-hop, Mexican rock, french techno and a million other things that I enjoy. If we isolate ourselves within our own culture then things can get boring. I try not to be so arrogant as to assume that my own culture is the best.

If I missed any important points that you wanted me to address just bring them up in your response to this.

Also, send me a link to your debate with maholinder if you don't mind. I'd be happy to see your scientific arguments against global warming.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant by media stereotype.

I was talking not about the style of music, but the content. In the media rap is often portrayed as womanizing, violent and unintelligent. I was giving examples of rappers whose lyrics do not fall into this category. Lupe's song actually is criticizing those rappers who make music that is misogynistic and unintelligent.

You seriously need to buy a dictionary/actually pay attention to my arguments. I didn't generalize anyone, except maybe people who think Nickelback is better than the Beatles. These people need a fork stabbed in their ear. There I said it, so sue me. I'm not sure how this counts as a generalization since I'm not actually sure there are any people who hold the opinion that the Beatles were less talented than Nickelback. There are certainly people who would rather listen to Nickelback, but this isn't what I was saying (try to keep up).

So you are saying that the only way in which one cannot like the lyrics is to not understand them? I read EnigmaticMan's dispute, and agreed with it for the most part. I just don't like rap, regardless of the meaning.

No, my point was that you Terminator, don't understand the lyrics. Not people in general, not people who like this or that music, but you. Go ahead an prove me wrong if you want.

I also don't care one way or another if you like to listen to the music. Like I said to enigmaticman, I don't like classical music but Beethoven was clearly a very good artist, and I am not going to take that away from him just because I don't like to listen to his songs.

I've heard rap before. There was even a tune or two which I thought of as "catchy". I daren't venture any further, though; the overall quality is heinous to say the least.

As I've had to explain a hundred times in this debate, I don't care about "catchy" tunes. For all that it matters to this argument they could have been throat-singing while scraping their nails on the chalkboard. I was arguing about the lyrics, not the way in which they are delivered.

As far as the majority of the genre in this respect, you may have a point if you are talking about the stuff on the radio. That's why I provided good examples of rap, and didn't just say rap in general.

Perhaps I did try, but simply not in writing on this site?

Or perhaps you didn't? Why do you phrase it as a question. You know whether you did or didn't and if you did and I was wrong then show me...or even easier, look at my interpretation (since I already agree with it) and argue either a) why you think I'm wrong about this interpretation or b) why I'm right, but the song still sucks. This is pretty straightforward...I've already done all the work, and if you continue along your current trend so has enigmaticman since you're just going to repeat whatever he said.

Define "good".

Well we're talking about lyrics, so meaningful would be a good word to use. And I mean that in multiple ways.

I thought it was quite a novel way to argue.

Argue? There was no argument, you just admitted to being a stubborn nutjob who believes in government conspiracies and refuses to listen to science. I can understand though if you're frustrated on being called out about your lack of knowledge on a subject. I would be too if I regarded my own intelligence as highly as you do yours. Must be a great shock when you go into reality and find you are mistaken.

Also, are you seriously dumb enough to think that capitalism and environmentalism are incompatible? Not on topic, so feel free to ignore this...just was wondering since I never really understood your logic here.

(A), (C), and (D)

Disagree. Tens of millions of people listen to hip-hop/rap on a regular basis, and therefore the messages portrayed in these songs are some of the most influential in all of music (hip-hop/rap has influences that spread into many other nations around the world). Lupe's concern about the messages portrayed in rap go deeper than merely dissing other rappers. Like I've said a couple times before, he seriously bothered by the objectification of women in rap songs and thinks it is a serious issue. On this point I would have to agree. Girls growing up, listening to music that refers to them as nothing more than something to fuck is a real problem, and by standing up and pointing this fact out to an audience that may not want to hear it, Lupe is being (as he says) fearless. Now obviously you don't listen to rap so the issue isn't as important to you, but Lupe is talking to people who grew up listening almost entirely to rap. These are people who freestyle with their friends on weekends (harder than it sounds by the way, only a couple of my friends are decent at it) and many of whom see being discovered as a rap artist as the only way to get out of their situation.

Materialism is another aspect of hip-hop that Lupe is arguing against, and once again I agree with his criticism. It's not news to anyone that most rap songs glorify lavish lifestyles, just turn on MTV cribs to see what I'm talking about. Gold chains, tricked out cars, even gold teeth...these are common subjects in rap songs. It doesn't take a genius to realize how unintelligent lyrics like these are.

None of this really makes a difference though since you don't believe your own criticisms. Your own opinion of hip-hop/rap was that it was unintelligent before we started this debate. Scroll up and look, if you disagree...the proof is there.

Lupe isn't allowed to criticize the fans of other artists, because that right is yours exclusively? Your logic is incomprehensible.

How should he have responded if he sees a problem? "Um could you guys please stop making songs that degrade women? I would really appreciate that, thanks." Something tells me that this probably wouldn't get his message across to his listeners.

Nor does your argument about the theme being important to you really undermine the song's message or lyrics. I care little about the issues of 19th century industrial workers in England, yet I can still recognize Hard Times by Charles Dickens as an extremely well written and important novel. You already know this since you don't live in New York (or maybe you have in the past, correct me if I'm wrong) and yet you recognize the lyrics of U2's song as being meaningful.

As far as the self promoting part (A), even Shakespere bragged about himself in his sonnets. Your arguments about envy and spite are unfounded as well since the entire tone of the song is humorous. Once again, should he be politely asking the other rappers who write songs like Move Bitch to kindly stop degrading women? Face it, the only reason you have issue with this is because you went into this debate with certain notions about rap, and regardless of what evidence is shown to you, you will see what you want.

Which brings us to (E).

I told you that doesn't matter. We are trying to move beyond subjectivity a little. Were you to argue something like: "I don't like most rap because it is simplistically written and I disagree with the themes presented by many mainstream rappers" then you would have a legitimate argument. Actually that sounds familiar...

Now, below I shall provide another set of lyrics which I consider to be good:

What, you realize that New York wasn't a good example? I have no issue with U2 as a band (saw them last year in concert actually), and Bono's work with charities is inspiring. What confused me though is that I gave you the oppurtunity to choose any song in any genre, and you chose the one you did. I'm not trying to argue that "Dumb it Down" is the pinnacle of lyricism, but it is extremely well written. Does this mean that there are better songs out there? Almost certainly. Hell, I can think of some pretty quickly. All along the watchtower by Bob Dylan was written in the spirit of the Beat movement of the 60's and the lyrics can be classified more as a poem then the lyrics to a song (although the song itself is good too). My point with this being that finding another good song in and of itself doesn't show that Lupe's song is poorly written, unless it is somehow leaps and bounds better. Or to put it another way: no one could argue that Ted Kaczynski wasn't a bad man because Osama Bin Laden is worse.

I did ask for an example of a song that does have good lyrics though, and if your point was valid then that song should not even be comparable lyrically to Lupe's song. It should be so much better that it makes Lupe's song look like it was written by a child, since you claim that the song (and all of rap) was terrible. I think I showed pretty conclusively that, at the very least Lupe's song is well written, and at best exceeds in quality the lyrics to "New York" by a large margin. You are unmoved however, so I will analyze the song of your choosing.

Why is his rap better simply because he proclaims it to be?

First, the whole thing is tongue-in-cheek. Second, he's not the only one since nearly every reviewer agrees. And even those who think his album The Cool was only good, and not great still point to "Dumb it Down" as a very intelligent and well written song. Even Jay-Z, one of the most respected rappers of all time, has called him a "genius rapper."

The guy is having fun with this rap, and if you actually paid attention you would see this. He's confident yes, but not to the point of "spite and anger" as you proclaim. Now, maybe your not used to music like this, so I can understand if you didn't immediately pick up on the tone, but the chorus alone should have clued you into that.

Again you presume too much (and To kill a mocking bird is better).

I said that you may not be used to the language. Maybe you are and I'm mistaken, and if so great. The song will be easier to understand. With your petty complaints about grammar though, I'd say it's a good bet you aren't too familiar with it.

Unrelated but I'll comment anyway: while To Kill a Mockingbird is a great novel, and certainly an American classic that deals well with race in the American south, Mark Twain's novel is historically more important because it is one of the first major literary critiques of the racism that existed in the south. Hemmingway said: "All modern American literature comes from" Huck Finn. I also enjoyed it because I am partial to satirical works, which is why Hard Times is my favorite 19th century British novel, and one of the reasons why I enjoy "Dumb it Down."

The windshield is minstrel, the whole grill is roadkill, so trill and so sincere.

when a bloke in a trench coat and the locs in the chair

You skipped a part. I don't know if this was intentional or accidental but here is the full lyric:

The windshield is minstrel, the whole grill is roadkill, so trill and so sincere. Yeah, I'm both them there

Took both pills, when a bloke in a trench coat and the locs in the chair had approached him here

The first line makes reference to the previous line when it uses the metaphor of the car (which I discussed in my previous post). I also talked about how he uses the idea of a minstrel show to compare how the shallow messages of current rappers compare to the shallow and racist portrayal of blacks in these shows. The next part, about roadkill in the grill could be referring to how other rappers are like roadkill in a car that he is driving or, since he gave over the wheel in the last verse it could be that the listeners/rappers are failing to avoid the BS (the deer and chickens) that plague much of rap. The last section of this line is likely referring to Lupe himself when he says he is trill (a slang term coming from the combination of the words "true" and "real" meaning that the rapper is well respected) and sincere.

The second line of the section you quoted is, as I stated previously, is an allusion to the Matrix. I don't know if you've seen the movie, but Neo, the main character (played by Keanu Reeves) is offered two pills (one red, one blue) by a man in a trench coat. The blue pill would transport Neo back to his normal life (which we find out is just an illusion created by computers). The red pill would take Neo out of the "fake" world and into the real one. Lupe, by saying that he is taking both pills, says that he will remain in the rap game, while staying real at the same time.

Now I'm not sure what you found wrong with either of these lines, but I'm here is my interpretation of each if that clears anything up.

Hence the absence of an analysis on your part? Don't worry, I won't run away because your argument is a page-or-two long.

The reason I didn't write a full analysis of the song, was because I thought it was a pointless exercise. I mean you tried to analyze "Dumb it Down", and for the most part it was a waste of time for both of us. You are the one who is convinced "New York" is a good song, so I assumed you would be the one to try and convince me. The way you want to go about doing this is backwards. But fine, you want an analysis then an analysis you shall get. Like you when you analyzed the Lupe song, song however, I will be hindered by the fact that I am not familiar with the song. I'll do my best though:

In New York freedom looks like

Too many choices

This is clearly a reference to how much there is to do in New York, as well as a statement about how freedom, one of America's most important values, is so clearly exemplified in the daily life of New York. He also gives a slight negative connotation to the idea that there are too many choices, which probably refers to the whole idea that in our modern life we are offered so many options that it can be overwhelming. Reminds me of the line (I forget who said it) 200 channels, and not one good thing on T.V.

In New York I found a friend

To drown out the other voices

Either this means that he met someone in New York who mattered to him, or, more likely, that New York was the friend he made which allowed him to settle his nerves. It was a place he really fit in.

Voices on the cell phone

Voices from home

Voices of the hard sell

Voices down the stairwell

In New York

These lines appear to be a representation of the singers anxieties which are soothed by his New friend (see what I did there?). He is constantly barraged by cell phone calls, his family, advertisements and...well I don't know what he's referencing with voices down the stairwell. Maybe there's a lot of buildings in New York, and thus lots of stairwells? If you have thoughts on this go right ahead and clue me in.

Just got a place in New York

This is part of the narrative that he is going to be referring to throughout the rest of the song. Obviously he just moved to New York.

In New York summers get hot

Well into the hundreds

You can't walk around the block

Without a change of clothin'

Summers being hot obviously can refer to the literal temperature being so hot that people sweat through their clothes. On a deeper level he may be referring to all the activity that goes on in New York, and how many people have to show multiple versions of themselves when they go from place to place.

Hot as a hairdryer in your face

Hot as a handbag and a can of mace

New York

I just got a place in New York

You analyzed part of this section, and there isn't all that much else there (so far as I can see, of course feel free to point out what I missed). The hairdryer in your face part is a pretty good comparison to a muggy day in new york.

In New York you can forget

Forget how to sit still

Tell yourself you will stay in

But it's down to Alphaville

Relatively straightforward lyric. With the hustle and bustle of New York it's impossible to not be constantly doing something. There is always something going on so you can't stay in. I don't get the Alphaville reference...a place in New York maybe?

The Irish have been comin' here for years

Feel like they own the place

They got the airport, city hall, asphalt, dance floor

They even got the police

Referring to the history of Irish immigrants in New York and their current political influence. Also a reference to Bono's own Irish heritage (presumably he is the one moving there? I don't know if this song is based on a real story or not)

Irish, Italians, Jews and Hispanics

Religious nuts, political fanatics in the stew

Happily, not like me and you

That's where I lost you, New York

Singer is commenting on the fact that there is a lot of diversity in New York, and a wide variety of different perspectives on things like religion and politics. The singer is saying that he and his wife are not like these ideological extremists, however.

We also get another piece of information about the singers personal life, in that he lost his wife after they moved to New York.

In New York I lost it all

To you and your vices

Still I'm stayin' on to figure out

My mid life crisis

Here is the interesting part, story wise. It appears that while in New York something in their relationship went wrong and his wife left the city. The singer, on the other hand, is trying to deal with his mid-life crisis, by staying in the city, which he clearly loves.

I hit an iceberg in my life

You know I'm still afloat

You lose your balance, lose your wife

In the queue for the lifeboat

More juicy story lines. The comparison of his life to the sinking of the titanic is apparent and shows how dramatically and quickly his life has become a shipwreck. The singer is still surviving, but only barely and now without his wife.

You got to put the women and children first

But you've got an unquenchable thirst for New York

Now it's beginning to look like he gave up his wife and kids for the city itself. He allowed the city to get in the way of his family and now they have left him, yet still he refuses to leave New York.

In the stillness of the evening

When the sun has had it's day

I heard your voice whisperin'

Come away now

Perhaps a final request by his wife to leave the city before he loses his family? Either the ending is ambiguous (he leaves or he doesn't and we don't know which) or as previous lines suggested, he stays in the city and doesn't leave.

So that's what I got from the song. Assuming I didn't fuck it up royally (a big assumption for me to make) then I would argue that while "New York" may be a good and well written song, it still doesn't compare to "Dumb it Down" if we are judging both on lyrical content. I'm not going to say much more about it here though since you still need to tell me if I did the song justice (which is why this whole system of analyzing each others songs is backwards).

Seems like you completely missed the political commentary to me.

Well now I've missed it twice. How about we stop playing hide and go seek, and you just point out what I am clearly too thick to perceive.

I disagree.

While that's well and good, I provided an argument.

So at one point you believe most rap is lyrically deficient, and at others you believe it is superior to all other genres, exclusively because of its lyrics.

Ughhhhhh...I thought I was pretty clear about this but I'll spell it out.

I think that most mainstream rappers have songs with hollow meanings and not a lot of depth. What these rappers can do though is write clever rhymes that usually have two meanings. The underlying theme of these rhymes though are usually about misogyny, violence or other equally shallow ideas (gold chains for example).

Understand? These rappers are good with lyrics, but aren't really saying anything worth hearing. Lupe is both good at creating clever lyrics, and is talking about meaningful subjects. This is why he stands out.

And I find it amusing that you are unaware of your own lack of ability, and wish to point out the irony of that statement. You misinterpreted New York, and now you accuse me of misinterpreting Dumb it Down.

How did I misinterpret "New York"? I'm not disagreeing, and I very well could have (in fact probably did) but you offer no reasons on how I misinterpreted it. In short, show me where I fucked up. I'm assuming that if you had a good argument about how I fucked it up you would have presented it, for no other reason than to make me look bad. If this isn't the case however, and you do have a legitimate reason why I am inept at interpreting "New York" then go right ahead.

Do you actually wish for me to do that? It is not a brief undertaking to decipher a poem, even a part of it. It can take hours to type, not to mention the point that poems have many meanings, and that it is virtually impossible to be wrong if you back up your assertions. To run through all the interpretations (even my own) is something I am simply unwilling to do.

Oh god no, that's not what I meant at all. I might not be nice, but I'm not a sadist. My point was that you often can't understand a good piece of poetry merely by reading over it once. I definitely didn't want you to analyze "The Wasteland" though. That would have been terrible (unless you're into that thing). I also don't think that it's interpretation would serve any purpose whatsoever.

To be clear: no need to interpret anything.

This seems masochistic to me.

I enjoyed ever single play. It's also one of the reasons I didn't mind writing a critique of it, because it allowed me to think critically about the lyrics, and revel in Lupe's genius. I'm not asking you to be a fan though, just to get a little perspective on why I am.

Your illusions of intellectual superiority neither amuse nor intimidate me. In your contempt for me and my musical predilections, you reveal yourself to be of the same character of Lupe himself. While dragging oneself out of a ghetto is commendable, I wish that he would leave the idiosyncrasies behind; they are clearly infecting you.

Feeling a little insecure are we? I'm surprised you haven't brought up meaningless test scores yet.

I don't lay claim to any intellectual superiority. You aren't an idiot clearly, but you are arrogant and this is the only quality of yours I don't like, because it blinds you from the legitimacy of other's points of view. Don't mistake this as disdain or hatred though...you could be a great guy for all I know. I just know that on this site, you tend to act like someone whose opinion of himself is larger than the highest sky scrapers in New York.

I've addressed all this in my response to enigmaticman's post. Please go to my most recent one.

Just because you don't understand what the lyrics mean doesn't mean they aren't complex...it means you're either close minded, or thick (or both). Once again refer to my most recent response to enigmaticman if you want to know why I described these lyrics as complex. Unlike you, he at least tried to understand what the meaning of the lyrics was. Who knows? You may even learn something about good music.

There is no definitive way to value poetry...

That was my point. Thank you for reiterating it.

How do you know that?

Because I didn't get dropped as a child. Also I have ears.

That is a strange conclusion to make. There is an incredible amount of cultural difference between western democracies.

Eh, I guess it's relative, but my point was that we aren't arguing about peruvian hip-hop or Tuvan throat-singing so I think that we both understand the relevant cultures enough to meaningfully comment about them.

I shall enjoy this. First, I shall attempt to discern the meaning of the lyrics, in the context that you have provided:

Good, I'll enjoy it too. I love music so it should be fun.

Sorry I didn't go through the whole song and analyze it but last time I tried putting a lot of effort into a debate with you, you ended up just giving a trite response. Now that I know you plan on putting thought into this discussion (thank you for doing so by the way) I will be happy to discuss the song, which I think can be judged as better than the U2 song you provided on a level that is more than subjective.

First, the full lyrics:

[Verse 1:]

I'm fearless

Now hear this

I'm earless

And I'm peer-less

That means I'm eyeless

Which means I'm tearless

Which means my iris resides where my ears is

Which means I'm blinded

But I'mma find it I can feel it's nearness

But I'mma veer so I don't come near

Like a chicken or a deer

But I remember I'm not a listener or a seer so my windshield smear

Here, you steer, I really shouldn't be behind this, clearly cause my blindness

The windshield is minstrel, the whole grill is roadkill, so trill and so sincere. Yeah, I'm both them there

Took both pills, when a bloke in a trench coat and the locs in the chair had approached him here

And he clear as a ghost, so a biter of the throats in the mirror

The writer of the quotes for the ghosts who supplier of the notes to the living

Riveting is rosy, pockets full of posies, given to the mother of the deceased. Awaken at war, 'til I'm restin' in peace

[Chorus 1:]

You goin' over niggas' heads Lu (Dumb it down)

They tellin' me that they don't feel you (Dumb it down)

We ain't graduate from school nigga (Dumb it down)

Them big words ain't cool nigga (Dumb it down)

Yeah I heard Mean And Vicious nigga (Dumb it down)

Make a song for the bitches nigga (Dumb it down)

We don't care about the weather nigga (Dumb it down)

You'll sell more records if you (Dumb it down)

[Verse 2:]

And I'm mouthless

Which means I'm soundless

Now as far as the hearing, I've found it

It was as far as the distance from an earring to the ground is

But the doorknockers on the ear of a stewardess in a Lear

She fine and she flyin, I feel I'm flying by'em 'cause my mind's on cloud nine and in her mind at the same time

Pimp C the wings on the underground king

Who's also Klingon

To infinity and beyond

Something really stinks, but I Spinks like Leon

Or lying in the desert

I'm flying on Pegasus you're flying on the pheasant

Rider of the white powder, picker of the fire flowers, spit hot fire like Dylon on Chappelle's skit

Yeah, smell it on my unicorn, don't snort the white horse, but toot my own horn (sleep)

[Chorus 2:]

You've been shedding too much light Lu (Dumb it down)

You make'em wanna do right Lu (Dumb it down)

They're getting self-esteem Lu (Dumb it down)

These girls are trying to be queens Lu (Dumb it down)

They're trying to graduate from school Lu (Dumb it down)

They're starting to think that smart is cool Lu (Dumb it down)

They're trying to get up out the hood Lu (Dumb it down)

I'll tell you what you should do (Dumb it down)

[Verse 3:]

And I'm brainless

Which means I'm headless

Like Ichabod Crane is

Or foreplay-less sex is

Which makes me stainless

With no neck left to hang the chain with

Which makes me necklace-less

Like a necklace theft

And I ain't used my headrest yet

They said they need proof like a vestless chest 'bout the best, fair F-F-jet in the nest

Who exudes confidence and excess depth

Even Scuba Steve would find it hard to breathe

Around these leagues

My snorkle is a tuba, Lu the ruler around these seas

Westside Poseidon, Westside beside'em, chest high and rising

Almost touching the knees of stewardess and the pilot

Lucky they make you flowered

Personal floating devices, tricks falling out of my sleeves

David Blaine

Make it rain

You Make a boat

I make a plane

Then, I pull the plug and I make it drain

Until I feel like flowing and filling it up again..(Westside)

[Chorus 3:]

You putting me to sleep nigga (Dumb it down)

That's why you ain't popping in the streets nigga (Dumb it down)

You ain't winning no awards nigga (Dumb it down)

Robots and skateboards nigga? (Dumb it down)

GQ Man Of The Year G? (Dumb it down)

Shit ain't rocking over here B (Dumb it down)

Won't you talk about your cars nigga? (Dumb it down)

And what the fuck is goyard nigga (Dumb it down)

Make it rain for the chicks (Dumb it down)

Pour champagne on a bitch (Dumb it down)

What the fuck is wrong with you? (Dumb it down)

How can I get on a song with you? (Dumb it down)

[Gemini: talking]

Look B, here's my man, my two way, (hey) uh, what should I - ah here take this (hey) that right there, fuck what my boys talk about nigga, (hey) nigga you hot to me, I like you (Dumb it down)

[Lupe:]

Bishop G, they told me I should come down cousin, but I flatly refuse I ain't dumb down nothing

Now the first verse (the one you analyzed) is him talking to the fans of hip-hop/rap that he considers ignorant. In the first line he claims he is fearless because the whole song is essentially taking on the established paradigm of rap's subject matter which often is unintelligent and degrading to women (a common theme in Lupe's songs is criticizing those rappers which degrade women).

By saying that he is earless, peerless and eyeless he is saying that he can't hear or see the critics (which are represented in the chorus) and that because of this he is tearless...in other words these critics don't bother him. Obviously the peerless part is a double entendre which could mean that he either has no equal when it comes to rap, or that no other rappers are doing what he is doing by criticizing the ignorance of many hip-hop artists.

Another interpretation of this verse is that he is talking about blinded fans looking instead of listening ("which means my iris resides where my ears is"). The bullshit that exists in many rap songs is blinding, but Lupe says I'mma veer so I don't come near. The 'chicken or a deer" part is simply a metaphor about how he avoids the BS prevelant in mainstream rap like people avoid animals in the road (although if you can think of an alternative meaning I'd love to hear it...knowing Lupe there might be one).

The line about him not being "a listener or a seer" means that he can't see clearly (my windshield smear) because he is the artist and not the audience. He doesn't have the proper perspective to judge his own lyrics and therefore hands over the wheel to the audience though, but they don't avoid what he had to veer away from so "the whole grill is roadkill. Another interpretation of this verse is that he is thinking about giving up the wheel entirely by separating himself from the rap game entirely because it is a "minstrel" show. (If your not familiar with what this is, it was when white people dressed in blackface and acted like caricature of black people. What Lupe is saying is that those people raping the the songs are portraying blacks no better.)

In his next line he makes a reference to the matrix by saying he took both pills. What this likely means is that he is living in two worlds at the same time: the BS one created by ignorant hip-hop artists, and the "real" one which is where he believes the truth to lie. He is both a part of the hip-hop/rap world and removed from it at the same time.

"The writer of the quotes for the ghosts who supplier of the notes to the living" appears to be him saying that he is a ghostwriter for ghost writers.

In the final line of this verse he talks about how he is "Riveting as Rosie" which is a reference to the WWII Rosie the Riveter poster. This is a reference both to how good his raps are, and how he is looking to empower women with his rhymes...something not often seen in hip-hop/rap songs. This reference also relates to the rest of the line which goes Awaken at war, 'til I'm restin' in peace which likely means that he will be fighting until he dies to change the hip-hop/rap game for the better.

The first Chorus is relatively self explanatory. It represents the pressure put on rappers (and specifically on Lupe) to conform to the standard themes of hip-hop and "dumb down" his lyrics. The first Chorus is mostly concerned with the fact that many of his lyrics are heady, and that most of the uneducated people in the hood don't want to hear that kind of music.

I'm going to stop here for the sake of brevity, and because I think I've made my point.

The extract from "Dumb it Down" contains a host of immodesties

Most of which you misinterpreted (not through any fault of your own, I only gave you a portion of the song and I know how hard it is to search "Dumb it Down" Lyrics on google). He was really saying that he is trying to avoid the BS that rap portrays and how he refuses to dumb down his lyrics for the sake of an ignorant audience. Now you could argue that he is being immodest by claiming that his raps are more intelligent than other rappers, but I doubt he'd find a lot of opposition to that point, especially if we are only looking at mainstream rap.

some superficial contradictions

Are you saying that these phrases are only contradictory on the surface (superficially)? If so then I'd say that this isn't a problem since the song is meant to be read on a deeper level.

some rhyming

Is this a criticism?

and some colloquialisms

The language he is using is the language he grew up using in Chicago, and the language that his audience is familiar with. This may be the only part where cultural differences may create an issue in listening. I'm used to listening to this kind of music so it doesn't bother me, but you may have to force yourself to look past it if your going to look at lyrics like these.

If you are arguing that coloquilisms in a work of art is a negative, however, then I would ask you to read what many consider to be the single most important piece of American fiction: Huckleberry Fin.

as well as an ill conceived metaphor or two

There is quite a few more than one or two metaphors, and any that you interpreted to be ill conceived, likely come from a misunderstanding on your part and not a lack of talent on Lupe's, but if you insist that they are ill conceived then I would be happy to talk about any specific lines.

Like I said before, Lupe's lyrics are extremely complex and I get new meanings out of them on almost every listen. Therefore i likely missed something when going through the song, and possibly misinterpreted a thing or two.

Your U2 song on the other hand is relatively straightforward. While it uses one or two lines that are open to multiple interpretations and double meanings, "Dumb it Down" is filled with them. Now this can't be held against "New York" completely because double meanings of rhymes is a huge part of the genre and less so with U2's type of music. Even rap songs I consider to be inferior usually have a couple clever turns of phrase that have meanings deeper than what they first appear to be (one of the reasons I enjoy the genre).

Also, pointing out there's a lot of diversity in New York is pretty weak political commentary. I guess their next song is going to be about how many Christians they see when they go to Church. How edgy.

In short, while I'm sure that U2 wrote a very nice song about New York, it doesn't hold a candle to "Dumb it Down" lyrically. There is a simple reason for this: rap is almost all about the lyrics, and few do it better than Lupe. I find it funny though that you use your own lack of ability to understand the lyrics of "Dumb it Down" as a negative. I know when I read many famous works of poetry the meaning is not apparent immediately to me, but usually I don't just write the whole thing off as shitty. Otherwise I never would have come to like T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" (seriously, if you've never read it before, read through a part of it once and see if you can decipher the meaning).

I don't blame you though for not understanding it. I had a serious advantage in that this is a genre I listen to often, and this particular song I've listened to about a hundred times. What you should realize though, is that while "New York" may make one allusion in the whole song (the one about the titanic) there are more allusions than I can count on both hands (and probably at least one foot).

I can understand though if you want simpler songs. They require less thinking, and the meanings are not far below the surface. I wouldn't ask Lupe to do that though because I bet he'd respond with: "*I flatly refuse, I ain't dumb down nothing."

Shouldn't you be off trying to save a polar bear as opposed to "wasting the world's energy reserves" debating with somebody you obviously hold in contempt?

Actually Thursdays are my save the dolphins vegan cupcake sale. Polar bears are every other tuesday.

Good artists in your opinion. They do not count as evidence, as their artistic worth is debatable.

So lets debate it. I wouldn't have presented my thoughts if I wasn't willing to defend them (unlike some people on this site).

only appreciate lyrics if I consider them to be good. You seem to be under the illusion that negative opinions are not suitable responses, whereas positive opinions (your own) are.

No, but you provided no contradictory arguments as to why these lyrics weren't good. My assumption was that if you had some you would have given them...was I mistaken?

Then why is the basis of your argument a subjective opinion of the lyrics?

If the value of lyrics was completely subjective then there would be no way to judge the value of poetry, or even other works of art that rely on words such as novels. All criticism of these works (both positive and negative) could just be countered by saying: "that's just an opinion." And besides, if this were the case, then I would have equal ground on which to argue that a song is good that you do that a song is bad.

Obviously though we know that lyrics aren't wholly subjective. No one (who wasn't dropped as a child) would argue that Nickelback are better artists than The Beatles. Now there are songs that I don't necessarily like to listen to because I don't particularly enjoy the genre, but I will still admit it when a song is well written. I don't particularly like classical music for example, but there is no denying that Beethoven was a genius.

There are obviously cultural differences that can contribute to our appreciation of music, but since we both speak English and both live in western modern democracies (you are from the U.K. right?) then our cultural differences shouldn't be too great.

Nor does my opinion of you matter in a debate. We aren't arguing about each other we are arguing about music, so lets stick to the topic at hand, k? Good.

Now, Lupe Fiasco has better songs than "Dumb it Down" but I chose it because it's one of my personal favorites, and (more importantly) it deals with what you were arguing: the numerous influences that try and dumb down hip-hop/rap music. I would agree with the statement that most hip-hop/rap you hear on the radio is pretty mindless, and sometimes even comes close to the link you posted. Lupe's song is one in which he addresses this issue through the three variations of the chorus. This part in itself is good, but where Lupe really showcases his talents is in the verses. To save you the trouble of having to look it up here is the first verse:

I'm fearless

Now hear this

I'm earless

And I'm peer-less

That means I'm eyeless

Which means I'm tearless

Which means my iris resides where my ears is

Which means I'm blinded

But I'mma find it I can feel it's nearness

But I'mma veer so I don't come near

Like a chicken or a deer

But I remember I'm not a listener or a seer so my windshield smear

Here, you steer, I really shouldn't be behind this, clearly cause my blindness

The windshield is minstrel, the whole grill is roadkill, so trill and so sincere. Yeah, I'm both them there

Took both pills, when a bloke in a trench coat and the locs in the chair had approached him here

And he clear as a ghost, so a biter of the throats in the mirror

The writer of the quotes for the ghosts who supplier of the notes to the living

Riveting is rosy, pockets full of posies, given to the mother of the deceased. Awaken at war, 'til I'm restin' in peace

Like a good movie, the complexity of the rhymes are such that I needed to listen to the song a number of times to fully understand it.

Now, if you disagree that these aren't great lyrics then please actually give reasons this time, and maybe provide a song that you think does exemplify what you consider to be "good lyrics." But once again the option is there for you to just admit you down know what your talking about, and end the argument right now. I'm sure no one will hold it against you :)

Coulda fooled me.

Awww...are you still sore that I pointed out your ignorance on climate change? Poor baby.

Why? Hitler was Austrian.

I know, and what you posted wasn't really rap.

You see, the problem is that I don't care for your opinions on the subject.

No, the problem is that you refuse to listen to any opinions that may differ from your own. I give you four examples of very good artists as opposed to some random guy in his basement, and the most you can do is claim it's just some guy talking over a drumbeat. If you actually understood rap, and its African origins then you would understand that the genre was initially used as a means of telling stories. It's current incarnation (the one we now think of when we hear rap) is a blend of this style and the blues/jazz that came about in the American south over the past 100 years or so. But lets say you don't like the style...that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to appreciate the lyrics, which, if you remember was my main point about rap and my main reason for listening to the genre. If you could move past your prejudices, you would realize how lyrically talented the artists I posted really are...instead, you chose to take the low road.

The enjoyment of music is a subjective experience, to be sure, so there is no way to argue someone into liking a genre, artist or particular song. What I can do though is point out that the less subjective part of this music, the words themselves (the most important part of a rap song) are as good as any (and better than the majority of) artists in the history of modern music.

Debatable

You see the difference between you and me is that if our positions were reversed I would at least give whatever genre you wanted to present to me a chance before writing off the whole thing. You on the other hand choose (once again) to be a closed minded snob, who wishes only to bask in his own closed off world hearing his own opinions repeated to him, protected from reality lest it disturb his fragile worldview. Grow up.

But I would argue that we would both come toward the center if we understood each others music. My point was that you aren't in a position to comment on rap because you know nothing about the genre other than maybe its portrayal as a mindless and womanizing genre in the media.

There are rappers out there who are extremely talented...unfortunately these are not the ones that are often played on the radio so people like you (and others in this debate) assume that they don't exist.

Oh come on, I know your smarter than that.

We cannot mistake the worst iteration for the entirety of that thing. He didn't even post the video of a real rapper, just some kid in his basement.

Please read my response to him to get some examples of what I was talking about.

You know you're right. This one rap video that some guy made in his basement is representative of not only the whole genre but also the good quality rappers to which I was referring. Thank you for creating such a well thought out response, and not just repeating the media stereotype of hip-hop-rap music as a completely mindless and womanizing genre. /sarcasm

One might as well use Hitler as an example of why all Germans are evil. If you wanted to be fair about this you could have at least asked what artists I was talking about, but since I'm not a dick I'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt by actually giving some examples:

Get By - by Talib Kweli

I Used to Love HER - Common

Soundtrack to my Life - Kid CuDi

and to prove that not all rappers fall into the media stereotype you hear on the radio (and because Lupe is such a great artist):

I disagree. It is the policy of wikipedia to present only the facts, and not opinions, and therefore articles like the ones you mentioned actually portray their subjects fairly: discussing both the subject and possible criticisms to him/her/it. The moderators of wikipedia tend to do an excellent job of keeping bias out of the articles, and if you actually read some of them you would realize this.

(As a side note there is an entire article dedicated to criticism of marxism, so do some research before you judge).

If I'm not mistaken prayerfails is an atheist, and I think we can both agree that he is certainly not a liberal.

You criticize rap music, but I'm guessing that you know little about the genre. In my own opinion, the good rappers of the past couple years are some of the best lyricists in all of music. Music has gotten a lot better since 200 years ago, not worse.

You have clearly created puppet accounts to upvote yourself...please delete them.

You've avoided science but not arguments about science. I could go over a list of the things science and the scientific method has led to, but this wouldn't be enough for you since some guy claims to be abducted by aliens every wednesday. You reject evolution, and refuse to listen to reason when it comes to climate change, yet you still argue about them.

If you want to avoid it, then leave the issues to people who actually study them!

Yet in spite of the fact that you've never studied it, you always seem willing to give your thoughts on the matter, and certainly play the part of a science expert as best you can. Funny how that works, dontcha think?

The words are open to interpretation. I agree with John Scott's interpretation

The debate between the difference of agnosticism vs. atheism is literally the stupidest debate on the internet. Literally the only difference is how people view the two. Religious people want to feel less threatened by agnostics but still want to hate atheists so they create this big divide, as if there is some huge fundamental difference between the two beliefs. It is completely retarded, and a tedious exercise in semantics.

What is happening is people are taking these labels way too seriously. All atheists believe this with this exact wording, while agnostics all believe this with this exact wording. NO! The only difference is that some people like the associations one term has over another. Some people who consider themselves agnostics want to feel superior to their atheist counterparts, and some people who consider themselves atheists want to make their break from religion more dramatic: they are saying the same thing though...that they don't believe in a god. Otherwise they'd be deists.

Sorry for the rant, but this kind of thing pisses me off.

Who is "they" in that final "they are"?

The children...sorry about the ambiguity.

What about the parents' personal choice to teach their children what they will?

Which is why I don't actually support the idea. To a certain extent there is the right to be a "bad parent." Did you watch the video I linked to?

Knowing Dawkins, I'd say that this is the underlying motive.

Or at least a nice little side effect. His assumption is that religion won't survive if it is put on equal footing with other belief systems. Much like you suggested, he assumes that the only reason we believe certain things is because we grow up with them.

How does it become abusive?

Once again, did you watch the video? I tried to explain the whole: forcing your kids into your own category by showing disappointment when they choose differently, but theowarner is much more articulate on the subject than I ever could be.

No, I attempted to ignore that position...

In my own opinion? Children who witness these acts become more desensitized to them. Children growing up in violent areas witness violence that doesn't happen directly to them a lot. My own father growing up in queens saw a man who was hung from a street sign.

I think though it's safe to say that there is no actual conclusion we can make on this matter without evidence.

How many admit to being atheist?

Seriously?

For the most part, morality is instilled in people during childhood. In America, by a religious society and often by religious parents. I've never disputed that atheists have morals. Their morality (moral code, if you will) differs from my own; thus, their morality is, in my mind, immoral. That does not make it so.

I wouldn't necessarily describe most parts of our society as religious (although there are some aspects, and even whole parts of the nation which are), but there is some influence.

In general though, people will try to do good, and religion just defines what good means. My issue is when people use religion as an excuse not to think, but instead willingly embrace what was considered morality 2,000 years ago and has no place in our modern society (see discrimination against homosexuals).

So, if that petition were made law, what would happen to those who break the law?

Let me repeat that I think this is kind of a ridiculous petition that is well meaning but unrealistic.

To answer your question though, I think parenting classes would be appropriate.

They're your family.

And my friends.

I watch videos on youtube made by Christians. I laugh at them. I find their justifications to be horrendously simplistic and illogical.

I wouldn't generalize that with all Christians, but fundamentalists and apologists, yes, I would have to agree.

So you are arguing that people are inherently good? I argue that they are neither good nor bad, inherently. It forms over time.

No, I'd say that a person can be spoiled so that he/she is not good anymore, but I think that the vast majority of people are, at heart, trying to do good. That's why even the most evil acts, usually have some kind of twisted moral logic to them (at least in the mind of the people committing them).

Oh come on, I bet you care a little bit. If you were walking somewhere and you saw some trash on the street relatively close to a trash can, you wouldn't even consider putting it inside?

I would disagree with this premise. Viruses, and microbes are some of the most successful organisms ever to have existed (although I guess viruses aren't technically alive so scratch that). Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily select for intelligence but merely the ability to pass on ones genes to the next generation. Intelligence isn't required for this to happen at all, and in fact, most families of life don't have anything that we'd consider to even resemble intelligence. Plants, which make up a large part of our ecosystem, don't have nervous systems and can't think. In addition, most animal species rely on other means of survival, not intelligence.

Even with hominids, intelligence is costly. Our brain requires 20% of our total energy, and when you have to hunt for every calorie your body needs, this can be very difficult to maintain.

But considering the number of species that have existed on the earth, and the time-span (about 500 million years of multi-celled organisms I think) the fact that there has only arisen one species of high intelligence shows that it is not at all inevitable..

I love George Carlin as a comedian. I think he is hilarious and often insightful about modern culture. If you begin taking comedians too seriously though, you're libel to get laughed at.

Carlin's "argument" is that the planet itself cannot be harmed by humans. I would agree if we are going with the literal definition of planet. The piece of rock orbiting around the sun will be just fine regardless of what we do. This is true. If this is what you meant when you said that they don't care primarily about the planet then I would have to agree.

My assumption though, was that you were talking not about the condition of the rock on which we reside, but the environment (in other words the living things on the earth). Now Carlin talked about how humans aren't really responsible for the extinctions of other species, and though the points he made were funny and entertaining, they were far from accurate. Surprisingly enough, comedians don't get peer reviewed...imagine that?

So yes, if we look at the cosmological picture, nothing really matters. Humans will eventually die out and the entire universe will eventually decay until there is nothing but darkness. But here on earth, we do care, even if in the grandest sense nothing matters.

As far as the selfish part, I'm surprised you would make this argument. The entire idea of capitalism, and why it works is because people are looking out for their self-interest. You and I both know that this actually is a very good thing, because it allows for effective and efficient use of resources. The reason people are proponents of capitalism isn't because they are greedy (like far left socialists would have you believe) but because everyone benefits from it. The added bonus is that personal liberty is also maximized under a capitalist system.

Environmentalism is similar in that it looks to maintain our own self interests: making sure we don't have a shitty dystopian future where we have to wear oxygen tanks to breathe (exaggeration of course), but it also involves the moral obligation that many environmentalists believe we have toward the other species on this earth (we dramatically changed their environments and many are now dying off). In other words, just like how capitalism has an objective function (it works) and a subjective function (freedom), so too does environmentalism have objective (protects our environment) and subjective (maintaining the biodiversity of our planet).

Now the main reason I disagree with your premise that most environmentalists are selfish is that it doesn't really make sense when you look at time scales. Let's say everyone decided to just say: "fuck it, who gives a shit. Let's just ignore the environment and live our lives without worrying about any damage we may do to the planet (euphemism for living organisms, not actual ball of rock)." While we may see some negative effects in our lifetime, the majority of these negative issues would be felt by future generations. I always kinda liked this quote:

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."

Now I understand that some people don't like being told what to do, so I try not to preach, but I do attempt to help the environment in my own actions and support politicians who try and enact "green" policies. But maybe that's just because I'm selfish ;)

I believe that we were in agreement regarding the dangers of the politicization of science, were we not?

Some may be intentional, others may not.

I agree that often the media, politicians or other special interest groups take scientific studies out of context or try to twist the facts to suit their own interests. Science itself though is as close as you can get to objective.

ake, for instance, the conclusion that many have reached that homosexuals are "born that way", whereas other studies suggest differently.

To what science are you referring? I haven't studied the subject extensively, but I do know that homosexuality is found in most mammal species, in addition to many fish, reptile and bird species. This seems to indicate that homosexuality comes about by birth, and not environment.

There was an experiment back in the '60s or '70s which "proved" that life can form from nonlife. The experiment turned out to be - what's-the-word - Bunk - that's it.

In science when people make claims about experiments they publish a paper about their results. Then other scientists attempt to repeat these experiments to get the same results. If they cannot repeat the experiment with the same results, then the conclusions are rejected. The Fleischmann-Pons experiment in which two scientists claimed to have discovered cold fusion is a great example of this. Other scientists read what these two did, and attempted to replicate it. When they couldn't the scientists results were invalidated.

In addition, other scientists can look at the methodology of the experiments in order to determine whether or not the conclusions reached are actually validated by the experiment.

As you can see, science has a built in system for detecting "bunk". Something may be accepted as true that isn't for a short time in science, but very quickly other scientists will catch the error and correct it.

The system isn't perfect, but it has gotten advanced the human race to the point where two people like you and I are thousands of miles away and communicating instantaneously.

Also out of curiosity, would you mind telling me which experiment you were talking about?

There was an Indian palaeontologist who blatantly lied about the dates of his fossils - by many millions of years, I might add.

Like I said, if someone makes a claim in science it can be verified, or scientists can attempt to falsify it.

Once again, could you cite your source: it's starting to sound like you're quoting a creationist website.

Once you have read so many such incidences of this, one becomes quite skeptical of the whole 'scientific process'.

So out of hundreds of thousands of scientists, a handful make mistakes and these mistakes are caught by the scientific community and you doubt the process? Allow me to repeat: these mistakes were caught by the scientific community!

Then there are times in which two scientists can reach different conclusions from the evidence

Yes, when evidence is incomplete then there may be multiple theories that explain the evidence, however usually all we have to do is wait a couple years and more evidence will show one to be right.

as is perhaps most notable by a rejection of Global Warming by a portion of the scientific community.

Wrong. I can't really respond to this one other than just saying that you are wrong. I can only think of one legitimate climate scientist who is skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. There is an overwhelming majority of climate scientist, and if you want me to actually go over the science with you I will, but it would save us both some time if you just looked at my last debate, specifically in my response to enigmaticman's argument (which was a response to my response to you).

This is a subject I have studied (a lot) so I would be more than happy to talk about the science with you.

Of course, next comes science's total rejection of the paranormal. Many millions of claims, sightings, reports, interactions - you name it - and yet they continue to insist that no such activity has ever happened. Pyrokinesis, psychokinesis, spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, poltergeists, alien abductions, etc.

Uggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh. Seriously?

Okay, let's go through these one at a time.

First let me say that anyone can make a "claim". Right now I can call the police and claim I just saw bigfoot, but that doesn't mean anything. Add to this the unreliability of the ability of humans to witness things as they actually happen, and you do get people from time to time who claim to see weird shit.

Pyrokenisis, Psychokenisis

If there are people who have this power, then why haven't any of these powers been confirmed by doctors or scientists? I mean there's no reason why these people's conditions couldn't be analyzed. The reason that there are no actual reports of people who have this power is because they have all been hoaxes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

spontaneous human combustion

Huh? A handful of cases where we can't explain why someone caught on fire (usually because there wasn't a very thorough investigation) and you think this shows that science is unreliable. Listen, I can tell you like the paranormal, but just because you want to believe something is true, doesn't mean it is.

What makes more sense: that there have been a couple of rare cases in which someone caught fire for a weird reason that someone could solve, or that there is some type of...well actually I don't even know what your suggesting the alternative is. What are you suggesting?

ghosts, poltergeists

Now we are getting ridiculous (although we may have crossed that line as soon as you started this list). I'll let Pen & Teller deal with this one.

My only comment is that I find it funny that these "witnesses" see something strange and jump to the conclusion that it's ghosts.

alien abductions, etc.

Were I a smart person I would end the debate now. Unfortunately I am not, so I'm actually going to try and talk to you rationally about an issue that deals with human irrationality.

Scientists are currently looking for aliens. They aren't doing this by listening to crazy accounts of people who claim to abducted, or trying to unearth government conspiracies. They do it using a very scientific approach.

They've tried to explain somethings - when public opinion of them becomes too strong for them to ignore it - but never suitably.

Never suitably for who? The people who make the claims? The people who are eager to believe the claims? Of course they don't, because the people who believe these ridiculous stories aren't going to listen to rational explanations. No explanation would ever be good enough. Humans aren't 100% rational creatures, and often we confuse belief with knowledge, and if someone believes they saw something enough, then no amount of rational explanation is going to convince them otherwise. This is why we have people who claim to talk to god, or moses, or Xenu or magical leprechauns. We look for patterns and we see them.

Let me give you an example from one of my favorite youtubers AronRa:

...if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses who’s testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.

Witness testimony is not empirical evidence and therefore cannot be used to prove something. If you can show me empirical evidence of any of these phenomenon then we can actually discuss them. Otherwise it's just crazy people making ridiculous claims.

Nick Pope, Britain's ex-UFO expert, said that 95% of UFO sightings can be explained away. It's the 5% that completely defy any possible rational conclusion that convinced him that they were real.

Someone who claims to be a UFO expert believes in UFOs and therefore UFOs must exist? What are you going to argue next: a politician didn't fulfill a campaign promise and therefore he is actually working for the devil? Oh wait you actually did try and argue that once.

These arguments are getting tiresome, and I am not going to constantly address the rantings of crazy cooks who claim to be brought aboard a mothership by hominid aliens (a concept which doesn't make any sense btw. I'd be happy to talk about why this is almost impossible).

Seriously though: I'd be happy to talk about climate change or the other areas of science (I believe you mentioned evolution indirectly). I will not continue to humor you by taking seriously what can only be described as nonsense.

Of course. I'm curious as to why someone would think they don't. Perhaps there are individuals that might be supporting environmentalism for less than noble reason (although I cannot think of what these reasons might be) however, I would say that most environmentalists, by definition, care about the planet.

800 days and you didn't even know that!

I know, right? Coulda sworn it was impossible, but I guess you learn something new everyday.

An historically incorrect position. Indeed, Christopher Langan - said to have the highest IQ of any living man - is a theist.

Generalizing? Yes. Simplistic? Yes. Historically incorrect? I wouldn't go that far.

Incorrect.

Kids will believe that which will make them considered superior; if society dictates that atheists are superior, then they shall become atheists. If society dictates that atheists are inferior, then they shan't be atheistic. It is impossible to be completely neutral in the matter: if they are raised being taught about religion, they shall be religious; if they are raised as atheists, they shall be atheists. If the matter is wholly ignored, they would quite possibly be agnostic. In the end, the issue will come up some day.

1st: You once again misunderstand the terms atheist and agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist. This means that I am both not religious, and I believe it is impossible to know whether god exists (but find it extremely likely that he does not).

2nd: Kids may believe a lot of things (Santa, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy) but teaching them about a religion, and even claiming oneself as religious is very different than raising a kid and saying: you are this religion. Hell, a parent could even go so far to say to their child: I am a Christian, and I think Christianity is the best choice, but you have to make your own decision as to what you think is best for you. Then the parent could teach about christianity as long as they wanted, so long as it didn't seem like the kid never had a choice. What children fear more than any imaginary underground fire is the disapproval of their parents. If you are emotionally manipulating your child. Here is a very good video that explains my viewpoint, by a you-tuber whose views on subjects like religion I respect highly (seriously, I don't often expect people to look at every link I post, but this one would go a long way towards helping you understand the whole indoctrination thing from my point of view).

As I believe I stated, the interpretation is open to opinion.

Maybe to a certain degree but I couldn't argue against the NRA by interpreting the 2nd amendment as me having the right to place the arms of a bear on my wall. I have already multiple times explained what the petition means to those who have signed it, and this is really the only interpretation that matters.

No. I did not state that they were indoctrinated; rather, I alluded that they were more open-minded - once they come to adulthood, their opinions become rock-solid.

That's why it's best to show them all viewpoints as a child and not try and instill a rock solid sense of what religion they are. It's called personal choice, and I thought that this was an idea you supported.

What gives them the right to enact laws discouraging it?

Nothing. This may be the underlying motive, but I think the prima facie reason for this petition is to prevent what they view as abuse. Once again, refer to the video for my thoughts on this.

Why tell them?

I only let one know, and its not like I just went up and told them. We were talking about religion and she started asking me questions, and I didn't feel like lying. The majority of my friends and family have no idea that I'm an atheist (in fact, until recently, I even went to church almost every Sunday). I don't think it's right I should have to hide this fact about me, but unfortunately, in our society, I do for the most part.

I believe it was you with whom I had discussed the nature of inducing fear in children...

Based on your logic, those children who grow up in the most violent areas should be the least likely to commit violence as adults. Guess what? The truth is that this is the exact opposite. So much for teaching kids about sexual abuse by sexually abusing someone in morning assembly.

Perhaps this would add to my previous statement in italics. If you know somebody who gets burned by touching an active stovetop, perhaps they'd be more cautious in future?

This was an example of a fear in which the consequences were real. To teach kids about other things they shouldn't do, you need to make the reasons against doing these things make sense. If you can't think of a rational reason why someone shouldn't act in a certain way, then resorting to "you will burn in hell" is kinda intellectually lazy, right?

They are my relations. I know them quite well. I see them as they interact with other relations.

You're right, I can't speak to your own experiences, only my own.

Once again: the meaning of the petition is open to interpretation.

And once again, I interpret the U.S. constitution as a treasure map.

I've never known an atheistic family's children to have good morals. I've accused one of them of having Münchhausen's Syndrome; another is perhaps the most deceitful and disrespectful person I've ever met. The list goes on.

The worst part is, the latter's parents encourage that kind of behavior.

We can go on and on about anecdotal evidence, however, it is my own opinion (and prison population statistics that people are either moral or immoral, and their religious views have little or no affect. If you're not killing people then I don't care if it's Jesus, Muhammad, Budah or an invisible 12 foot trout that is your reason. I personally just use reason to determine my own morality, but to each his or her own.

That was a petition, not the wording of the actual law. However, it stands to reason that, if parents disobey the law, legal action would be taken.

And it stands to reason that you continue to make outrageous jumps in logic.

Okay, I amend my statement to: "Talking about religion in a positive light..."

Once again: learn what indoctrination means. Seriously, if you haven't watched the video yet, this would be a good time since it addresses your argument.

I hate theists. I prefer to interact with agnostics, but I'll settle for an atheist. Christians are too...Christian. Don't like 'em.

What's with the hate? I love a number of people, and the majority of these people are Christian. That's because the majority of people I know are Christian, and I don't really care one way or another about people's religious preferences.

For instance, there's this one atheist who insists that there is a gigantic anti-woman plot all over the world created with the intention of making women more enslaved then ever. She believes that all males are in on the plot, and that I - when I try to reason with her - am either blind or in on it to. Her husband is even in on it.

Once again, crazy people are crazy regardless of religion. Their are radical feminists that are religious, and those that are atheists.

See the difference between my conspiracy theories and hers? Her rebuttal to each of my arguments is: "they're lying!", whereas I do listen to reason. There are many theories - some of the most popular - which I do not agree with. I have never, and most likely never will, believe that everybody is in on it. I don't think that you are in on it. I've grown to like you throughout our discourses.

Sure, her theory is a little more crazy than most, but once again the majority of conspiracy theories are crazy to a certain extent.

I have never feared the result of a conspiracy theory. Most never come to see the light of day (that doesn't mean they weren't real, though). If it occurs, it is never on quite as grandiose a level as the theorists believed.

Haha: I promise, if I ever do find out about an atheist conspiracy you'll be the first to know.

Thus, religious people aren't all that evil and conniving.

Agreed. Religious people are people, and most people are good. There are evil Christians, just like there are evil atheists and Muslims and all other sorts of belief systems. People are just people, and labels don't change that.

Benefits of Private Research

I completely agree...where it not for private research we probably wouldn't have even a tenth of the technologies we enjoy today. Even with the nasa technologies, it was private companies that put these products to good use. Trust me, I agree. What we also need though, is research for the sake of research. I cited the numerous technologies discovered by NASA and the advancements in medicine discovered from fruit fly research. These are the advantages of having government spending go to scientific endeavors. Don't think though that I am saying that the government is the only entity that can make important discoveries, but we need both.

Is the public sector only capable of inspiring people...

You seem to make my point for me. Most kids are inspired to become athletes, or copy their favorite musicians. Out of these kids how many are actually going to reach this level? Not a lot. What's going to be the alternative career of the rest? Well I don't know what jobs overlap with football and basketball skills, but hopefully they were paying attention is school as well.

My point is that as far as science goes, one of the most inspiring professions for young people is an astronaut, and this is because these astronauts are going "where no man has gone before." Name a private sector science career that has action figures that kids will actually want to play with, and I'll concede that you're right.

I'm not saying all these kids will end up at NASA (in fact most won't), but it will get them an early start at being interested in learning about science, and there are a lot of jobs that require background in science...and almost all of these jobs are good ones (a lot better than the not quite professional football players will likely get).

People choose to have a child, did they not? Again, who forced them to have sex? Take some responsibility. Maybe they should wait until they can afford it or save the taxpayers some money by using a condom; thus it would raise the average IQ of human gene pool.

So punish the parents by punishing the children who have done nothing wrong. I like the logic there. Also, if someone is having a kid when they can't afford healthcare, chances are they aren't thinking enough ahead to weigh the costs of having a child.

Why European health care is cheaper? Ration Care 1 2

The heritage foundation? Nice source.

Rationing care would explain why it's cheaper but it wouldn't explain why its better. It wouldn't explain why the U.S. has such a low life expectancy and high infant mortality rate when compared to countries with "socialized medicine". Shouldn't we be getting better services for our extra bucks? You would also expect our system to be more efficient since it is controlled by market forces, but you'd be wrong again.

The only reason people mention "rationing" in other nations is because their systems are more transparent, whereas ours aren't controlled by the government and therefore the statistics are much more difficult to find (the health industry doesn't want to advertise how many people it denies healthcare too). When we look at how many people in the U.S. are uninsured, it becomes obvious we too ration healthcare...just in a different way.

If you can give me some rubric on which to measure healthcare of different nations that doesn't put the U.S. behind nations with single payer healthcare then I am all ears. Until then though, I'd like you to explain why a country with a per capita GDP one fifth that of the U.S. has a higher life expectancy.

Since you think paying taxes is so great, why don't you pay more. The government never denies over zealous citizens from paying more taxes.

I contribute more by donating to charities and volunteering, which will hopefully help others to contribute more to society so that less money is needed as a safety net.

Yeah, I am waiting on your side. I am waiting for the dependents of the government to grow up.

I'm not waiting, I'm trying to help them get on their feet. Listen, I'm open to any ideas that may help reduce the level of poverty we have in this country. That is why I support public education because it gives people a chance to contribute more to society by getting a better paying job then would otherwise be possible. Not everyone is born into families that can afford to send them to private schools and pay for college, so not everyone has had the same opportunities as you and I. I'm not delusional, and I understand life will never be completely fair, but we can at least give these people a fighting chance. Maybe you think welfare isn't the answer, and you could probably make some pretty good arguments why, but we need to do something. Micro-loans have worked pretty well in developing countries, so maybe they would work well here at home. If we took a portion of the money we use for welfare and instead loaned it to low income people looking to start a business or something, then that would be a much cheaper option of helping these people.

Back to the economy, however, I'm waiting for some U.S. politicians to grow up. You can't claim to be an economic conservative and then not balance the budget. At least Obama is doing what he said he was going to do (whether you agree with him or not). From what I've seen of the tea partiers they want lower taxes (which we have) but haven't suggested any workable solutions as to how to balance the deficit.

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And the Taxing and Spending clause.

Tyson is ivory-tower...

One of my science teachers actually gave me a pretty good example about why research, for the sake of research, is important. When Einstein first came out with his theory of relativity to describe gravity as spacial curvature, rather than just a force acting over a distance, everyone thought it was groundbreaking, but they thought it was just a cool idea and not something that could ever have any effect on our real world. The fact that it took a lunar eclipse just to confirm the theory meant that probably none of this would matter to us. Fast forward to the age of GPS satellites and we now know why this discovery was so important. Turns out you need to understand Einstein's theory of gravity to figure out where someone is on earth accurately. I could give other examples about quantum physics, but I think you understand what I'm getting at. By exploring areas at the edge of our knowledge we learn more about our universe, and in doing so we often stumble across useful information. It may not seem so at the time, but it may in 20 or 50 years. The is why it bugs me when politicians try and claim that us spending money on science is a waste, when they don't understand the importance of said research.

Nasa goes a step further though, because, as Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, they inspire younger generations to pursue scientific career paths. In country where the public school systems are doing not as well as they should be, don't you think it would be nice for kids to have a role model that encourages education and the pursuit of knowledge? Hell, that's one of the reasons I wanted to study astronomy as a little kid.

Plus, if you are so about helping the poor...

Well according to you we can help the poor by spending less money on them, so what do you suggest we do with that money instead? What programs do you suggest that could help the poor? And anyway, like you said, the amount we spend on non-discretionary spending (like the entitlement benefits you hate so much) dwarfs our spending of NASA, so I'm not sure who it would really help to stop going into space.

Programs

Like I said before, lets take these programs one at a time so they can be addressed individually.

Social Security should be cut in half.

Something definitely needs to be done about social security, because it's about to become a huge drain on our budget. In addition to just straight cuts in spending, we need to raise the age of eligibility. Currently you begin receiving benefits at age 62. This would have been affordable when the program was created because in 1935 the average life expectancy was 63.9 meaning that on average Americans would receive about 2 years of benefits. The average life expectancy is now at about 80, which means on average Americans probably get 18 years of benefits. This number is only increasing. So if we were to gradually raise the number then we would save a lot of money.

Medicaid eliminate

I don't know the numbers but the cost of E.R. visits by individuals who are too poor to afford medical treatment until they're dying, in addition to the cost of the increased spread of infectious diseases is enough for me to oppose the scraping of Medicaid. We don't live in a bubble, and a healthy society is a better one to live in.

Medicare should be cut in half

Maybe, but good luck getting that passed into law. Senior citizens vote en masse.

Welfare eliminate.

We already have a pretty good system of welfare in which people need to be searching for a job...can it be improved? Certainly. But scrapping the whole program would have numerous social negatives. Face it, we need some type of safety net. How it is structured, and how big it is can be debated, but not scrapping.

Child Health care eliminated.

Wait, what? Okay, I understand the reasoning behind the others. You don't want to rob peter to pay paul, and giving benefits to the unemployed helps encourage unemployment...I get it. I really do. When you talk about cutting healthcare for children though? Now I know you're just being a selfish prick. A child doesn't get to choose what family it was born into, and therefore requiring a child to pay its own medical bills when its parents can't is...inhumane to say the least. What are you going to cut next, foster care? I heard those little brats are annoying anyways, always crying about their dead parents. Come on, have a heart.

Health Care Bill

I understand the 1st part. I don't understand the current medicaid law to know who would be helped by this 1 trillion dollars. In general though, I'm pretty sure that more health care is a good thing, right?

I should also point out that nearly every European healthcare system is better and cheaper than ours is. In other words, government spending on healthcare doesn't always mean less efficiency. Now I know this flies in the face of your libertarian ideology, but sometimes we have to face reality. This is why I don't try and align myself with any ideology: I try and just support what works.

Health care is not a right. It is a product.

Yeah, but then again people usually don't choose their illnesses. I understand that elective surgery should come out of pocket, or that people who risk their health should pay more, but otherwise its just kind of luck of the draw. To me it makes sense that everyone pays into a pool and those who need healthcare get it. Normal supply and demand rules just leave us with people who have to choose between food and rent, or life. Not typically a desirable place to be. I like market forces, but this is an area where maybe a public option would be better for everybody (once again, see Europe).

Not only is the government steal for taxation and threaten jail time, but they just have to pass laws that it is legal for them to force everyone into commerce, and if you don't, you go to jail.

Rawr Rawr Rawr...I disagree with a new bill, and therefore am going to call taxes I don't like stealing and complain about jail time for tax evasion. Exaggeration at the expense of practicality! RAWR!

If people only paid the taxes they felt like, then we'd have very few taxes being paid. Can we please have a grownup discussion about the issues? Okay, good.

If you lived in a bubble, then yes you could pollute your own air as much as you want. In the real world, however, everyone breathes the same air. We all have to breath your pollution, and your pollution affects the environment of everyone in the world. If you want to bottle your pollution, or like I said before, live in a bubble, then go ahead. When you want to join the rest of us on earth, however, you are going to have to pay to pollute.

Well if they are over there, shouldn't they have some comfort.

Certainly...but it shouldn't cost as much to send people to space as it takes to keep people comfortable.

Either way, both should be cut. If it means only preserving the research and development of NASA and cutting everything else, then fine, or cutting the defense budget by 20% or more, then good.

Military cuts, yes. NASA cuts I'm against. Neil deGrasse Tyson does a pretty good job explaining why we need to keep it.

Oh, so the government can get its hands on more of our money. Then we can start building homes for the poor and call it public housing. Oh wait, they already exists, and it is a extreme failure. Why because they live in the housing for free without any incentive to maintain or improve it. Wait, how about an antipoverty programs? Wait, those only increase dependency.

Some social programs work some don't. There is a valid debate we can have about what social programs should and shouldn't be paid for, and I'm perfectly willing to have it. Generalizing is going to get us nowhere though.

Well sure, there is some infrastructure, but we don't share the same viewpoint.

Exactly my previous point. Some government spending is good, and some isn't. This is why we need to talk about each point individually and not just claim all is bad.

Reform Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs and not where there is more spending like the new health care bill.

I would agree that these programs need to be reformed to some extent, but I'm curious what specifically about the health care bill you don't like.

Seriously, do you think this president or the next has any ambitions to pay off the debt. This president only raises the debt limit just until he needs to raise it again.

Yes, I really do. Clinton began paying off our debt...but then Bush the "economic conservative" came in and cut taxes and increased spending. Talk about a policy removed from reality. Right now Obama has a reason for increasing the deficit: we're in a really bad recession. I've said this to you before, and I will tell you again: if the economy recovers and we are still running a budget deficit, then I will stop agreeing with stop supporting Obama on economic issues. Neither I nor you can predict the future though, so lets go ahead and wait until the economy recovers before we claim to know what is going to happen.

Idiot Mentality

Wow, that view characterizes perfectly what I and every other Obama supporter thought when he got elected. Give me a break. Pick a candidate and I'll find a supporter of theirs saying some dumb shit.

An agnostic is someone that claims it is impossible to know whether god exists, which is the opposite of a gnostic who is someone who believes that it is possible to know that god exists (and that he does exist).

Most atheists are agnostic, and some religious people are agnostic, but to claim that agnostic is somehow a neutral position would be false, especially if you mistakenly assume that being agnostic is somehow in-between religious and agnostic.

The whole idea that taking the middle path is the neutral one is a fallacy as well.

All I see in this paragraph is deficit this and that. Do you know how to cut deficits? Well, cut government budgets.

I agree, cutting the budget is another good way to fix the deficit. Maybe we should cut military spending, like the 20 billion spent on air conditioning tents in Iraq and Afghanistan. To give you some perspective on how much this is, the annual budget for NASA is 18.9 billion. Our total defense spending is between 880 billion and 1.03 trillion dollars which is roughly the size of the budget deficit. Now obviously we can't cut out our entire military spending, but by significantly reducing our military spending by ending our unnecessary wars as well as ending the Bush tax cuts then we will go a long way towards balancing the budget.

How is more government revenue good?

Because it means that we can spend more without increasing the deficit, or alternatively begin to pay off our national debt. It also means we can improve infrastructure which, in turn, helps promote economic growth. Now the obvious flip-side to this that there is no free lunch. The money for government revenue has to come from somewhere so therefore we need to see if the societal benefits of taxing outweigh the cost. It also means that we should structure our taxes in a way that is least harmful to society...in other words, taxing those who have the most more than those who have the least.

Jobs are created by supply and demand with the help of rich people. When was the last time poor people created a job.

While I'm sure that maid, butler and driver industries may take a hit when rich individuals get a tax increase, however, other than this I'd argue that businesses create jobs. Some businesses are started by rich individuals and some are started by middle class people, but you're right that poor people rarely start their own business. What poor people do do though is spend money. They spend more of their income (as a percentage) than either the middle or upper class. This means that many of the jobs created by the middle and upper class wouldn't be able to exist if it weren't for the spending power of poor people.

We, you mean the government, and money for the freebies.

Well I do mean the government, but I mean money to begin paying off the debt, and to continue paying for necessary infrastructure that helps keep this nation running. But if you want to interpret my comments in some way that fits your ideological view of government being inherently bad, then I'm not about to stop you.

I am an atheist and have been for a couple years now. I've also seen people try to generalize all atheists as believing one thing, when in reality the term atheist applies to such a diverse group that you couldn't possibly meaningfully define them as a whole except for the fact that they tend to reject the idea of a personal god. I can't really speak to the ideas of others so I'm just going to speak for myself.

In general I guess I would consider myself a positivist: I will accept an interpretation of reality as true so long as it explains the evidence. That interpretation which best explains the evidence is the one I tend to "believe". I try though to separate those things which I believe from what I know. I often here people saying that they "know" things which they obviously only believe. Beliefs can be irrational, so I do my best to believe where the evidence leads...I'm only human though, so pure objectivism is almost impossible, but I try.

When it comes to morality, I often here the claim that atheists must be amoral because they have no higher authority defining their morality. I take issue with this because I truly believe that humans are naturally good. Some might argue is an irrational belief which lots of evidence contradicts, but I would contest that point. In general though I think most people live by the fairly simple moral rule of: be good. The only difference is how people define what constitutes good. The best way (in my own opinion) to determine whether something is moral or not, is to determine if that action helps or hurt society.

It's not difficult to educate someone...convincing them to care? Not easy at all.

I can't speak to your experience, and I'm sorry if they didn't respect your views, but I've never seen atheists stopping people on my way to class and trying to recruit them. To be fair though, I don't actually know all that many atheists personally, nearly everyone around me is Christian, which further goes to my point that it would be almost impossible to be intolerant...if I was, I'd have no friends :(

I did not think we could edit these after someone responded, but okay.

Thus, he is belittling their hypothetical conversion.

No, he is being arrogant about his position and implying that people who are religious are stupid. These are legitimate criticisms against Richard Dawkins, and ones that I would mostly agree with. Your story about little kids being convinced to lie is irrelevant to this conversation. If we had a conversation about how easy it is to manipulate children, then I think your story may have some relevance.

Most proselytization occurs amongst the young. By making it illegal to inform the young of religion, the percentage of theists would decline dramatically.

Look at the language of this petition. It says it is against indoctrination, not against talking about religion. I personally think this type of idea is unrealistic, but I also find it humorous that you understand most people are only religious because they were indoctrinated yet still defend the practice.

In addition there is a huge difference between trying to ban something, and trying to enact policies that discourage it. For example banning alcohol is different from making commercials that advocate responsible use.

I've a number of relations who are not religious - or are of a different religion. Their parents had little problem with it, as far as I can tell.

People do tend to be polite, and most likely you weren't there when they first "came out" to their parents about their religious differences. Once again though, I can only speak about my experience... not fun having a parent tell you it makes them feel like they've failed as a parent just because you don't accept their religion. But hey, maybe I was just unlucky.

Theists are belittled in modern society.

And atheists are demonized. Cry about it.

Dawkins, amongst others.

Once again: read the language. You are completely misinterpreting what this petition is meant to do.

I've always felt that fear was good for children.

Remind me not to hire you as a babysitter. I think rational fear is good. Fear against putting their hand on a stove or sticking a fork in a light socket is well and good. When it comes to morality though, teaching empathy rather than fear would be my approach.

For instance, young children - especially toddlers - are very impressionable. Tell them that something horrific and evil will result from them disobeying, and they are far more likely to obey.

Sure, if all you want in children is obedience, but honestly I don't want to get into an argument about child rearing. It's almost completely unrelated to the subject.

I've also found from experience that a mild form of hypnosis works fairly well in that regard, as well.

Once again, don't ever babysit my kids. You may get them to shut up for the short term, but I wouldn't want to see the long term effects.

I suppose that depends on how you interpret the petition

Oh come on. Do you seriously not see the extraordinary jumps that have to be made for anything that the site says to be true? Where does it say that children will be taken away from religious parents? Nowhere! Where does it say that talking about religion is a form of indoctrination? Nowhere! Maybe you should actually try and see what the creators/supporters of this petition intended it to mean. Or just live in some fantasy world where all atheists are awful, immoral, intolerant people who want to kill theists and are secretly trying to take their kids away from them through petitions. Be afraid be very afraid...or be rational and calm the hell down.

You do understand that the idea of waiting until someone is an adult for them to decide their religion is not some new idea, right? Many Christian sects wait to either baptize or confirm until a person is an adult, because they figure the person can't really understand their religion until they are old enough to think rationally so they shouldn't make a decision about what they are. Sound familiar?

though Dawkins is most likely quite close to such an outrageous view

Not at all actually. He was asked what he would do if his kids wanted to be religious, and he said that he wouldn't try and stop them but he hoped they would be smarter than that.

Maybe you could legitimately argue that he doesn't respect religion as much as he should, but saying that he wants to ban it entirely is a complete misrepresentation of his views.

In fact, as far as being tolerant, how many religious parents would be okay with their children converting to either a different religion or becoming irreligious? A lot less than atheist parents who would oppose their children becoming religious (let me tell from experience, religious parents don't take it well when you tell them your an atheist).

New Atheists, as they are by some known, wish to limit the freedoms of those who are religious. They wish to ban the religious from speaking about their religion - to others or even to their own families!

Who wants this? You are nuts.

I know there are atheists who claim that parents are abusing their children by scaring them with hell, and those who oppose certain types of indoctrination, but none that oppose people speaking about their religion.

Doubt it. At least those atheists in America have to tolerate Christians everywhere they go. If they were really intolerant they would have to leave the country and go to some island somewhere...but hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to reassure your worldview.

The Bush tax cuts are across the board starting from low income at 20k a year and up.

The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.

I just think that the timing of this would be bad if they let them expire.

Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, the direct costs of the enacted and proposed tax cuts would total $2.8 trillion. The cost would equal 2.1 percent of the economy in 2014.*

Source

I understand that tax cuts help stimulate the economy, but they do so at a cost: government revenue. This means that, while Bush's tax cuts may have helped the economy some, it also massively increased our deficit, and the fact that all of these cuts were aimed to mostly help the rich makes it even worse, because the rich didn't need cuts. They were already at an extremely low level of income tax in spite of the fact that wealth distribution is at an all time imbalance. In other words: the wealthiest Americans have comparitively more money then ever before, and are paying some of the lowest taxes in history when we need the money more than ever (we have a record deficit, as you may have seen from the debate description). Does any of this seem right?