CreateDebate


Orangepeel's Waterfall RSS

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

This is a very vague question. Do you mean should ALL animals be held in captivity? I don't think anyone thinks that.

Do I think that some animals should be kept in captivity? I suppose it depends on the circumstances. For example, I don't see anything wrong with having a tiger or a panda in a zoo, provided it's treated humanely and there are no damaging effects on the animal or the environment. It allows the general public to get up close to animals they otherwise would never see in their lifetime, learn about them, etc.

1 point

Loving thy neighbour is neither violent nor hateful. I would almost argue that Christ declared the Old testament obsolete when He stated that He hadn't come to revoke the old laws, but fulfill them (acknowledging they had their purpose, and are now irrelevant).

Almost all critics of Christianity and Islam take the texts wholly out of context when quoting the scripture. I can't imagine anyone would seriously think that the Bible expects us to follow the same specific laws that the Israelites needed to follow in order to survive their time in the desert - most of them were political, not moral.

1 point

I'm pretty sure the Tea Party opposes big government and socialism, it wouldn't make sense for them to be anything close to Nazis.

2 points

100% WRONG.

Nationalist and socialist movements have usually been allied against monarchical regimes particularly in Europe. Not to mention Ho Chi Minh, a communist and a nationalist.

3 points

No, because they stand for totally different things. When you compare any group to Nazis of the KKK or whatever using any terms, even if you're just talking about popularity, you immediately imply that the two are a like - when strictly speaking you aren't. The Tea Party would actually have to be a racist movement for it to be even remotely comparable to the KKK.

2 points

No it was the secular wing of christians in the north whom dissaproved of slavery (they were still pretty racist however), it was the more deeply religous christians of the south who took the bible at its core that believed slavery was justified.

>secular christianity

>Abolitionism

Pick one and only one. The Northern abolitionists were pretty darn religious.

Btw, many of the slaves. Were starved to death on their way over here by slave ships

They were taken against their will and were mistreated. The bible outright condemns this. Enslavement =/= slavery.

Im not saying they should've starved to death, but living in a hell like that isnt a much nicer alternative

Again, you need to learn more about slavery as an institution. The slaves during bible times and under the Roman empire were different from the US and Europe.

1 point

If it's causing pain or trauma to a suspect during an interrogation, it's torture plain and simple!

1 point

Thats the exact same arguments made by slave owners (most deeply religous christians btw) to justify the ownership of other human beings, along the lines of "we shelter them, feed them, and teach them hard work."

Which slave-owners, the ones who purchased slaves who sold themselves voluntarily to pay off a debt or the slave owners who took part in the trans-Atlantic slave trade (a practice that went against biblical principles)? The abolitionist movement (most deeply religious christians) argued that the slavery that was being practiced in Europe and the US was not the same as under the Roman empire and in the Middle east - and rightfully so, they were completely different!

I think it's disgusting that you'd have been prepared to let people starve to death for the sake of an ideal. If someone wanted to sell themselves in exchange for an agreed upon item or service, it's their choice! Fortunately the bible encourages helping people so that they will not need to, but it would take one sick f* to have abolished slavery back then.

1 point

I'm pretty sure that applies to murder, not self defense, justice, war, etc.

2 points

If you don't follow Gods orders, then he'll punish you.

Actually, he won't do anything.

Because of this, it gave people the idea that having slaves was OK. Eventually, some people found a group of not very civilized humans. Brought them into slavery, (because God makes slavery sound like a good thing) and then treated them like they were lesser human being

Ok, two things mate: the institution of slavery was very different during Bible times and under the Roman Empire from the trans-atlantic slave trade. People used to sell themselves into slavery in order to pay off a debt and to get free housing, food, clothing, etc. Slaves were expected to obey their masters, and masters were expected to look after their slaves properly. After Constantine and the influence of Christianity on the Roman empire, slave-holders were required to release their slaves on the seventh year and forgive all debts. It was a system based on economic realities rather than sexual or racial prejudices.

Had you abolished slavery back then, thousands of people may have starved to death. Of course the Bible wouldn't have advocated something so evil :)

Also, the Bible outright condemns enslavement IE those brought into slavery against their will. IE the entire book of exodus, Slave traders are listed as condemned, Timothy condemns taking another person against their will...

That's how racism came to be.

Actually it came to be through colonization and imperialism. A lot of it in the US came after the civil war and after abolition.

1 point

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

1 point

What specifically makes fascism far right? What did the fascists do that the far left didn't?

1 point

Personally, I believe it was a mixture of both.

Right wing Aspects:

Belief in a natural hierarchy. Basically didn't have a problem with one citizen having more money than another, or more power. Despite the state having control of wages as it did under communism, not everyone was paid the same.

Anti-communism. Believed it was a threat to the social and economic order, and standardized human-kind. Some fascist groups were even willing to team up with conservative and liberal parties in order to overthrown communism.

Social Conservatism. Family unit, cultural dominance as opposed to pluralism, respect for tradition, patriarchy, etc.

Left wing aspects

Anti-Capitalism. Generally the fascists hated Capitalism for similar reasons for hating communism, but also described it as "slavery" and "exploitation". The whole point of corporatism was to have the state run the economy to benefit workers and businessmen alike.

Collectivism over individualism. "If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government."

Environmentalism. Weirdly enough, every single fascist party that has ever existed placed strong emphasis on environmental protection.

Welfare state. Both Hitler and Mussolini rapidly expanded social welfare programs not just to alleviate employment, but also tried to promote the elevation of national health and encouraged people to engage in sports and exercise. Also spend heaps on public parks, libraries, subsidized art galleries, theaters, etc.

1 point

Oh, and far left governments didn't kill people who disagreed with them?

1 point

here is a fun little fact about the constitution most of the founding fathers disliked the result of the constitution, and others hated it most significantly Thomas Jefferson he believed that instead of the amendments we rewrite the constitution every two decades!

Indeed Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that the Constitution went far enough for him. Notice how he never advocated expansion of government, even when being dissatisfied with the constitution?

Now if we listen to an economic system mandated by the constitution (Laissez-faire Capitalism) the middle class would not exist it took government involvement throughout the 20th century to essentially create the middle class!

Quite the opposite: If we listened to the system dictated by the classic conservatives / modern progressives, we'd no longer have a middle class! At the very least under feudalism, active regulations via guilds and usury laws prevented anyone except special licensed charterers from owning and operating a private enterprise or private financial institution. Regulations existed to literally prevent people from rising out of their class. It was only once liberalization occurred in most of Europe that a middle class arose.

Why else do you think Business and liberalism has always been associated with the Middle class?

1 point

For the sake of the US, the Dems should just concede. Health care coverage to all is important, and clearly the majority of the US people want it. So why is Obamacare mandatory? Surely the people will be willing to pay into such a scheme voluntarily, if the majority of people already want it?

1 point

Except Corporations can't force you to do anything you don't want to, no matter how big they are. All they can do is offer you a product or service which you can choose to accept or decline.

The government on the other hand...

1 point

Corporations steam roll over workers and small business owners

"If you give legislators power over what is bought and sold, don't be surprised when legislators themselves are bought and sold."

Half the reason small businesses are failing is because they're so over regulated they can't compete. Who do you think lobbies for these regulations?

1 point

So what if one person is good at carrying things, another is good at cooking, and another is good at resource gathering? What's wrong with them teaming up and turning a profit by providing people with a product they want?

1 point

What's next, is someone going to start up a debate asking which hand people write with?

1 point

replacing private funding of electoral campaigns with public funding

The problem with public funding is that it's money that was forcibly taken from the people, whereas private funding is money that was acquired from mutual exchange of goods and services.

what would result is a restoration of our democracy.

Expanding government power will certainly not eliminate corruption in politics, particularly if you give the state more power over the economy. A restoration of constitutional principles are much more important than restoration of democracy, seeing as how the two can easily conflict. I mean, we don't want mob rule now do we?

1 point

Then the people who enslaved the Africans should pay reparations, not those who were not involved.

Also, descendants of African-American Slave owners should pay reparations too, they were a part of it as much as any other slaver.

What the American Government fails to realize is America wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today if it wasn't for black slaves.

What are you talking about? A huge part of the abolitionist movement was made up of industrialists who knew that it was cheaper and more efficient, and humane, to pay someone a wage for work, rather than actually own labor as property. The slave states were NOT industrializing, while the northern states were. The institution of slavery decelerated America's economic progress. Jeeze.

1 point

I would exactly say that they were small government, they sent troops to crush the whiskey rebellion, a protest group of farmers who were complaining about taxes (basically the equivalent of todays Tea party).

Actually, the whiskey insurrection was part of Alexander Hamilton's plan to increase central government power. As you know, Hamilton and Jefferson were very much opposed to each other. Everyone arrested in the insurrection was acquitted, and the Whiskey tax was repealed by Thomas Jefferson's party when it came to power! The protesters were using violence and intimidation to prove their point which is why they were arrested, the Tea Party on the other hand is a peaceful movement - not a violent rebellion.


1 of 10 Pages: Next >>

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