CreateDebate


Charlesviper's Waterfall RSS

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

If a police officer is driving without a seat belt, take a picture or record the license plate and report the offense.

As a citizen of the US and member of the general public, you have your own rights as a check on the police force's power. You are not a policeman. However, that isn't to say you don't have any power.

Agreed. An individual's rights end where other's begin. You cannot take a "personal liberty" or make a "personal choice" if you are putting others at danger. While seatbelts don't save lives 100% of the time [a friend of my fell unconscious while driving and was thrown out the door, and his car then crashed through a drainage pipe and was instantly crushed, he would've been killed no doubt about it], it is a very rare occasion that they are counter-productive.

The crux of the argument is that by wearing a seatbelt, you are less likely to lose control of the vehicle, putting others at risk, and since US laws aren't meant to restrict the individual but to help the group, they are a necessity at either the state or federal level.

By adding a seatbelt law, you give people a heavy incentive to wear a seatbelt and protect themselves, but more importantly, others.

4 points

I agree. Even if you look at the concept of "slavery" in America, you'll see that slavery was banned in the Northwest Territories in 1787, and the influx of slaves from Africa, the international slave trade, was banned January 1st, 1808 [in America].

Despite this, slavery remained and even flourished, with the number of slaves increasing between this time period and the Civil War more than five decades later. This is because the quality of life of Black slaves, despite being poor and enduring constant physical abuse, was comparatively higher than that of the average African. This was because many slave owners invested large amounts of money in their slaves and felt their lives should be long enough at least to procreate, but also because it was easier and cheaper to expose a slave to cheap Western medicine than it was to buy a new slave.

Not only that, but what are reparations really for? Is it because the descendants of slaves are living in poverty, or simply that they are descendants of slaves? While there needs to be more proactive programs to help the poor in America [not just poor of a specific skin color], that do more than simply hand out cheques and create dependencies, is necessary to keep in mind that slavery in Africa existed long before westerners came to Africa for slaves in 1619, and exists to the present day. By transporting poor, black men and women from Africa, they effectively gave these people's descendants a break from slavery, and exposed them to the greater freedoms and personal liberties available in America.

The reparations of slavery have been paid in full -- a break from the long-existing cycle of slavery in Africa, a chance for free education and health care in America, greater personal freedoms, and living in a country that has been free of civil and domestic wars for nearly 150 years.

8 points

I think Jesus was a real character -- his apostles certainly were. I don't believe in his miracles, that his mother was a virgin, etc.

If we look at our leaders of recent times -- Ghandi, Teresa, King -- they've all be glorified even in this age of photographic and video media. We look at videos of King as a testament to his existence, however we have put King past what he really was. Certainly a great social leader, but not without is own problems [domestic affairs, etc]. Same can be said for Ghandi -- a great social leader, with poor economic choices that kept many Indians in poverty even until modern times with his de-industrialization and concept of "spinning thread for peace".

Jesus, in my eyes, was a regular ordinary guy with an awesome stance on social conservatism and ideas that really helped in that time period. His social and economic philosophies were an oral hit, and his ideology was spread far and wide until it was put into the Bible in about 170AD. In that 170 year time period, his overall being was transformed from "genius" to "our supernatural savior" -- as conceptions that there would be a Messiah had been present for a long time.

In regards to the comment of Mithra and Horus, it's not too much of a stretch to argue that when Jesus' story, keeping in mind it was an oral tradition back then, had it's intricacies changed slightly. That doesn't mean it was "made up", and I don't know why you'd think that.

If you look at the proof -- notarized, official letters from Jesus' apostles to the royalty of the time period, the fact that they died for their beliefs -- strictly looking at the apostles, it appears they have the conviction you would only have from witnessing first-hand a character as powerful as Jesus.

However, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that SINCE the time of the apostles, he's been glorified and edited to fit with the "Old Testaments" version of the messiah.

Regardless, what I imagine is his "original" message -- that of turning the other cheek and helping the poor -- has little to do with religion, and is the political stance of a well-known historical figure.

0 points

I agree. Around 1/5 of all passages of the New Testament are about helping the poor, turning the other cheek, and being a pacifist [to a certain degree]. The majority of issues have with the Bible are in the Old Testament, and are small passages that only reference the position people were in when the Bible was written [170AD or so].

Obviously humanity has come a long way since then, but why? I think if you talk to the majority of people about there morals, it'd be about "helping people" rather than "helping themselves". People talk about humans as being intrinsically good, but I disagree -- before we had a way or reason to "be good" [Heaven], people didn't think about their action's consequences. Now, whether or not you believe in God or Heaven [I don't believe in either], you must admit to some degree that the stories of these two fantastic literary devices do push people towards "good" actions. "If I kill my teacher for giving me a bad grade, I'll go to hell".

0 points

My dad's been through rich and poor. We're now in a period of affording housing and food when much of the world can't.

We haven't been to church in six years, and I don't regret it.

I don't believe in God, but we do practice the TRUE Christian morals -- not pathetic wedge issues like "God hates Gays" without any evidence, but things like turning the other cheek and the necessity of helping those less enfranchised than you.

I look at God as a literary device. I've never met or "talked" to him. I don't pray. You simply cannot support a statement like "God loves us all, and gives us food". First off, if God loves us all, why do people go to hell? Secondly, if God loves everyone, why doesn't everyone have food?

4 points

Even the "worst" companies provide innovation, be it directly or non-directly. By releasing a new operating system after a whole six years without a revision, they've seriously pressured the Linux and OSX crowd to update. Things like the new Aero [storage of bitmap renders of the window's contents] is really customizable, and a vast step up from XP. While it does require stricter performance, the step up in security and stability from 98 to XP was worth it. The same can be said about Vista -- I've not yet had a system-level crash. When a driver fails, it doesn't blue screen -- it simply reloads the driver. That's more than I could say with my experience from Ubuntu or OSX [kernel panics every week].

Suicide and assisted suicide should be legal. Like prostitution or drugs, it's impossible to stop, expensive to regulate, and futile to try to and administer. However, the post-suicide response is what should really be under debate. Hypothetically, if person decides to commit suicide by ramming into a redwood or state-constructed bridge, who will pay for the damage? The taxpayers? The family?

By legalizing suicide, it's clearly a step forward -- it's not simply ignoring a problem that clearly exists. However, it IS something that is an economic problem. Expensive recovery and relief needs to be conducted, to prevent lakes or river filling up with destroyed cars with dead bodies inside them. There should be a fine imposed on the deceased's family to try and deter the member of the family about to commit suicide from an "expensive" suicide, to a method of Euthanasia which is controlled and safe.


2 of 2 Pages: << Prev

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