CreateDebate


Turpificatus's Waterfall RSS

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

It laggs less on my pc

These advertisements are distracting and dangerous. They appeal to universal base instincts and thus reduce driver concentration. This may lead to serious road accidents and deaths. Drivers are distracted enough by signs and other road users already and should not need to deal with these extraneous aberrations

The act of driving, once indoctrinated, becomes secondary in nature, much like walking or riding a bicycle. Advertisements serve as a change of scenery and are a legitimate way for corporations to encourage us to consume products and/or services.

From differences stem conflict. Because of unaligned perspectives, anger, dissidence and intolerance rise. Only through unity and self sacrifice can we truly pursue utilitarianism. Differences need to be minimised.

What you propose is to convert civilian infrastructure to military use. Since the primary purpose of such infrastructure is non military, it follows that it will in most cases, be inferior to specialised military equipment. In Russia, there is are elite, veteran forces, well versed and readily mobilised while it would take some time to convert civilian engineers to take onboard a militant role. It's akin to raising a peasant army to defeat royal knights.

The greatest flaw with the gedaken that I know of occurs during his spell on evolution.

1. Evolution does not explain life, evolution explains how life changes

2. Evolutionary theory does contain an application; selective breeding. This is where all our specialised high yielding crops and livestock stem from.

3. Mutations do occur today, such as the hexadactyl limb from the pendactayl limb http://www.bbspot.com/News/2008/04/six-fingered-man-barred-from-guitar-hero-tournament.html as well as citrate fixing bacteria http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

4. Evolutionary regression does occur, such as the Bats of New Zealand having reduced flight capability and resuming foraging through leaf litter as their ancestors once did for insects

5. Fails to consider the role of natural selection as the primary evolutionary force, specialisation is favoured because it aids resource exploitation, simple organisms that already exist, exist in a highly competitive environment, specialisation and subsequent complexity helps organism find and utilise new resources

6. Misunderstands how evolution occurs, new species do not appear overnight, they gradually change from their ancestors.

On another note, although this addresses string theory which I do not comprehend well, it's assumptions on major physics principles are questionable.

7. Einstein's special relativity proposes that the speed of light through a vacuum is non variable, this is proved through it's implications such as time and mass dilation as well as length contraction which have been proven via jets, atomic clocks, particle accelerators and detectors.

8. The speed of light is not constant, it can be slowed; http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/ 02.18/light.html

9. Does not address other, more widely accepted theories in physics such as the standard model of matter, which accounts for the properties of light and electromagnetism

Otherwise, Scott Adam's proposal on the mind as a metaphor generating deluded artifact stands, with some infusion from Dawkin's Memes: The New Replicators (from The Selfish Gene)

I think it is a sad day when a debate degenerates into slander and profanities. What ta9798 used is called a euphemism, it is used to either generate humor or inoffensively present a viewpoint. It is not used to incite offense.

Perhaps the bigger point is that you do not understand the purpose of debate. One debates due to interest in a subject. If you should be uninterested in considering the opposing viewpoint, then what you seek is not debate, but propaganda. Moreover, if you wish to speak on behalf of your fellow citizens, do not speculate, but provide evidence.

The ad homeniem is invalid, his arguement and yours are invalid, infact, I'm not sure any of the above arguments present any facts, and both are riddled with speculation and unsupported hypothesis.

Russia defended it's borders in the sense that early Romans 'defended their borders'. The rationale is that if you kill your neighbours, then your neighbours cannot harm you. More to the point, an incompetent leader does not necessitate stagnant leadership. If we look at Mao's mismanagement of China, we still see adept figures who are able to rise and act despite their disillusioned leader. Moreover, who do you encompass under 'we'? It is unspecified if you refer to allied forces or to America's entry into the war. I would also like to allude to Stalin's pact of non aggression with Hitler, indeed, Stalin expected Hitler to attack, however realised at the time that Russia could not sustain an immediate war with Germany because of it's technological inferiority, the non aggression pact was suppose to last until 1942 in order to buy Stalin time to build the infrastructure necessary to sustain a war effort. This strategy involved shifting industry away from the front lines to secure areas. One should then note that Russia expected to lose until such a point where it's base industry was strong enough to manufacture weaponry and equipment necessary to win battles. Yes, the USA entered in 1941, and yes, Hitler suffered from illness, but that should not discount the finesse with which Russians executed their own strategy, and indeed the significant grounds reclaimed by Russia as it engaged itself more wholistically.

The defeat of America within Vietnam, North Korea and Iraq stems not from military prowess but from social discrepancies. History has proven that invaders cannot colonise a land permanently without thoroughly cleansing it of its native inhabitants. Surely this is evident from the British colonisation of Australia, New Zealand, North America, as well as the Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of what is now known as Latin America. No people encourage foreign rule. That is why the puppet state appears, to give the illusion of the government by the people. The sovereign rules like a boat floats on water, turbulence at any moment may sink the boat. For this reason, it is unlikely that either Russia or America can 'win' against each other, they may increase their diplomatic clout with respect to each other, but both countries have and will continue to exist for centuries yet.

In reference to what you said. Specifically dealing with denial

By your argument, grammar should be invalidated because it is entirely contextual.

The alternate to current English grammar would be something similar to classical Latin where a suffix or prefix will denote the grammatical counterpart in English grammar. Such a system defies English as a mongrel conglomerate of different influences, thus would not be 'English' in the true sense.

Keynesian economic paradigms don't work. They attempt to stimulate growth by literally throwing money at the problem. You cannot ground one's economy on debt! For Keynesian macroeconomics to work, you literally have to assume people are stupid and will spend in times of scarcity due to 'consumer confidence'. Moreover, the underlying principle is that when the wealth is spread around, exponential (or a derivative thereof) will occur. However, the world is finite. What happens when the resources are consumed? Bam, recession, depression. Obama's plan pillages from the future in order to sustain today. The economic 'bubbles' of America happen because such growth is unsustainable, and need to be scaled back. Back during the tech bubble, interest rates were also reduced, taxes laxed, and what happens later? A bigger bubble bursts.

The only way to maintain sustainable growth is to ensure you're not spending something you dion't have. The reason China's 'primitive' financial markets escaped most of the financial crisis is because people in China do not spend money they don't have. Property 'equity' is fixed, if house prices goes up, you come up with enough money to fill your 5% minimum requirement if it's on a mortgage. The bank WILL sell your home BEFORE they loose money because you defaulted.

The 'stimulus' package will do nothing to alleviate the true problem. It is the idea that one can live on borrowed money, embedded in American culture since the rise of credit cards, that has caused this recession. Nothing is ever free.

Also, I find the idea of taxing those who have the means to leave the country very intriguing. The idea to tax the rich has been around for as long as rich people have existed, but surely from the previous socialist experiments one realises that the upper echelon cares not for where they reside. What I find particularly interesting about Obama's plan is to "End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas", if they're already sending jobs overseas, it appears to me that they've a solid base already not under American influence, and if that's the case, what's keeping them paying such high taxes in the USA? Also, it mentions it will attempt to "Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud". To me, after following the sub-prime mortgage scandal, this is mutually exclusive. The mortgage fraud stems not from the companies, but from the people who do not meet standard requirements. Now the government will be paying for these mortgages. Why should such a system, which supports unethical, excessive borrowing, be supported?

So not only is this paradigm going to fail because it does not understand deep parameters that influence individual behaviour, but it actively supports those who failed the system.

Read your science textbooks, realise 9/11 is hardly the work of aircraft. But refer to the debate http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 911_was_an_inside_job for more details.

However, _disclaimer_ I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to impeach any party in it's responsibility. Conversely, Obama is an intelligent man, he is a much better choice than McCain when it comes to diplomatically diffusing international tensions. So if 9/11 were the work of international disenfranchisement, Obama will be more able to prevent such an issue happening again compared to McCain.

"It is unnatural to upset the balance of the world and the creatures who live here with us and even the lowly termite has its job to keep things in check"

I think you will find that when you look at an ecosystem, each organism does not have a defined 'role' as such, rather they function selfishly, however are offset by another organism's selfish act which counterbalanced the initial effect. Evolution 'molds' organisms to take advantage of resources, since waste is a form of produce, then it follows that something opportunistic will consume it. Oxygen itself is a waste product of photosynthesis.

Perhaps the question should be, "is it responsible to alter one's environment for industrial purposes," because altering the environment selfishly is entirely natural

If we follow darwinian evolutionary theory, one of the underlying prepositions is that everything is Inequal. There is natural variation in traits which means that some individuals are more adept at surviving than others. Do the disadvantaged animals then tout equality and egalitarianism?

Life is a privilage struggled for by the skill of the individual. There is no such thing as a right to existance.

I refer you to the origin of oxygen on earth. The evolution of Cynobacteria from archaeobacteria some 2.7 billion years ago. Up until that point, earth had been largely oxygen gas free. The evolution of photosynthesizing bacteria that produce oxygen as a waste product caused nutrients which had otherwise been aqueously dissolved to precipitate out. Most obvious is the oxidation of Fe2+ by oxygen to Fe2O3(rust). This precipitated out. Denied of their abundant food source, most of the oxygen intolerant archaeobacteria died out. Estimates range over 90%. Obviously this had significant implications for life on earth, illustrating how unwilling change can cause 'ecological devastation' however without such climatic events, change would not have been able to occur, respiration would not have developed and thus the natural macroscopic diversity we see today. So it is utterly natural to change the environment one occupies, and indeed it is only through such processes that life as we know it rose today.

The argument is not the righteousness of the past, the argument is opportunity cost. Yes, in the past, we burnt coal. We drilled oil, and we cleared land. This may have had significant environmental effects, but they also have significant social benefits. The draining of marshes alleviated malaria risk areas, the clearing of forests stimulated urban growth and subsequently cultural growth.

Moreover, consider why China and India refuse to ratify Kyoto. They know solar tech and wind tech wont power steel mills or generate enough electricity at a reasonable economic price, these immature technologies are unproven and unreliable. What coal and oil have proven however is that they stimulate economic growth, they are based on reliable, mature technologies. Fossil fuels are not burnt because of what could happen, they are burnt because of what has happened, and what has worked.

From the 'get ABC to run our ad' but of the 'we can solve it' campaign, I noticed that it insists green technologies will produce 'a stronger economy'. To me, that's just false. Since when did solar panels or wind turbines power steel mills? How can you expect to run a city's powergrid based on the reliability of fine weather?

Close to home, I've been told that a 50x50 km patch of solar panels will provide all the energy needs of Australia. People who fall for such extremism obviously do not understand the infrastructure costs associated with solar panels, nor the finer points of electrical power transmission, specifically how solar produces DC electricity whereas most city power grids and transmission lines run off AC, and the subsequent rectification needed. Although I do believe it probably does illustrate how little energy Australians consume.

You [guy in the vid] forget Row C, climate change is real, but not anthropogenic, thus we spend money and disaster still happens. Thus the column A 'risk' actually does include the worst case scenario of column B but with the added bonus of less resources because money otherwise directed to survival technologies such as say, a Martian colony, is redirected into what essentially becomes an empty gamble. Thus your preposition is flawed because you use a false dicotomy between row 1 and row 2.

From a different perspective, perhaps Americans should consider their standing as a member of the world economy. International investors want their investments returned. They were lenders whom brokers sold mortgages to. They were shareholders in Bear Stearns, in AIG. When an American broker uses foreign money to give trailer trash a home, the American broker earns the money, the American citizen gets the home, but if it fails, it's not the broker or the homeowner who looses out, it's the foreign investor. These investors were sold falsely classified investments, what should have been rated D but were instead marketed as AAA. Now, how will the international financial community feel about this gross subversion of trust? Do you think, if they never get any of their investment back, that they would ever again invest in America? America has a reputation to hold. The world has been hurt. If you do not address this loss of confidence, then the world will hurt America back. IF a bailout does not occur, and foreign investors do not get their money back, then America can wave foreign investment goodbye. That is why congress needs to bail out the banks, to protect America's reputation, or at least, salvage it.

P.S. This is in reference to the second bailout proposition.

3 Points

a. "supported only by tautology", the correct term is begging the question, since p then q and since q then p.

b. "Occam's Razor drives us to admit that when we cannot empirically disprove the existence of something". Occam's razor proposes that given two equally likely explanations, the simpler one is usually correct. This is not an argument for the ambiguity of disproof. However, Faith cannot be disproved, yes, because it is a metaphysical trait, it is like disproving an concept, you can never 'prove' communism or anarchy, you can prove it exists, but you can never prove they're right, because it is metaphysical. You might be able to show advantages and disadvantages of a metaphysical concept, but you cannot absolutely prove or disprove a metaphysical value like one can with a physical, concrete law or theory.

c. "Ergo, we must accept that it is possible for a living, real, listening and noticing God to exist". That is a false dichotomy, why should 'god' be listening and noticing? Why endorse it with such attributes? When physicists use the word god, it is not always used to describe any omni salient being, rather it's an all encompassing term to include everything they don't know about the universe. It is even speculated that 'god' is nothing but a natural phenomenon that occurred concurrently with the creation of the space time continuum. Endowing god with such anthropomorphic traits is quite presumptuous, if not ignorant.

I believe that perhaps it is the wording of the debate which is causing much confusion, I would support "Faith is ignorant", but to assert metaphorically results in much more turmoil as interpretation is at the discretion of the responder. To that extent, I do cede that to categorically assign all faith to ignorance is logically fallacious.

Although I will cede that Damon probably does not do his fair share of research, from stumbling the net, it does appear to me that Palin is underrepresented, but then again, it might just be because of liberal media bias.

What I do know is that bashing a debate with campaign slogans probably isnt the best way to spread the word, nor are the ideologies of the past neccessarily correct. Moreover, I don't believe it is actually feasible to simply stop importing oil for a large consumer such as the US, implimenting alternative energy strategies takes time, and resistance is strong. I doubt 4 years will be enough time for america to see much return from alternative energies. If such slogans are to be believed, it will have to be taken on faith. That is no definite solution.

In swimming, the qualifying age is, I believe, is also 16, however I cannot find any reference to it on the internet.

However, my side point is that if one exhibits a gift for excellence in a specific area, should we not let that gift be nurtured? These young olympians are able to excel, and thus what gives one the right to hold them from excelling?


1 of 7 Pages: Next >>

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