CreateDebate


Unownmew's Waterfall RSS

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

Correlation does not equate Causation. Sunspots and other solar radiation also correlates with warming temperatures on earth. Clearly human CO2 emissions are affecting the Sun! :O

0 points

Yes. Every human breathing out Carbon Dioxide and farting methane is having a serious impact on the climate. They must immediately stop their breathing and farting, or else the world will end. Failing their voluntary action of simply keeling over dead, they must pay an immense carbon tax to strongly encourage them to reduce their natural but harmful emissions of Greenhouse gasses.

And after they die, their bodies must be catapulted into space (with carbon-neutral wooden catapults), forever frozen in ice (via a carbon neutral process of traveling to the arctic regions), or their children taxed again on carbon credits, since burning and natural decomposition would permit additional greenhouse emissions to destroy the delicate climate temperature balance earth has maintained for eons before humankind started its climate destruction of breathing and farting and decomposing.

Right?

Well, at least the government will get a bunch of tax money to spend on green projects like planting trees, growing algae, and metal-less woodworking.

1 point

Render unto Caeser that which is Caesars, while Caesar reigns (support justice of laws and equity in punishment), and then burn (to death) all murderers and wickedness at the advent of his own millennial reign.

1 point

The only way to effectively "prevent" any manner of crime, violent or otherwise, is to either, slaughter the entire human race into extinction, or ensure every human now and into the forever future, becomes and remains a mental vegetable. Otherwise, humanity will ever continue to act upon their natural and inherent powers, of which includes their ability to kill another. The point of Capital Punishment is to prevent, in perpetuity, that the affected can never again commit such crime as convicted.

Laws don't stop crime, and prevention doesn't stop crime, Justice and Morality stops crime.

The way you stop innocents from being convicted is to raise the standard of proof. Innocent until proven guilty is clearly not effective enough. Society needs to be willing to let hundreds of murders go free, rather than risk convicting one innocent man. Murderers can be dealt with through individual self-defense- capital punishment on the spot by the witnesses.

1 point

So you would deny human beings their natural and self-evident right to self defense? The problem with your philosophy is that it can't work. You can't prevent a human from killing another human if they so chose without making every single human ever to be born into a mental vegetable.

Arguing whether it should ever be right for a human to kill is irrelevant to the fact that they can, and do, and will continue to do so in the future, merely because doing so is within their natural and inherent power. Because this is so, equity requires, and self-defense compels, that individuals, and society, must dispense capital punishment in certain circumstances. The only question is when these circumstances require it.

2 points

I support Justice and Equity. All Human beings have a right to self-defense, this carries over to a society's collective right to self-defense.

When defense of the self or of the society merits it, death is and ought to be and remain, an option. This extends to war, and capital punishment. War being Societal Defense against another Society, and Capital Punishment being societal defense on behalf of the individual where necessity did not require, or could not have operated, immediate self-defense.

2 points

So... You want to force your religious morals on others via state policement? Sounds unconstitutional to me.

1 point

Simply because a law was passed doesn't make said law lawful or constitutional. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol, yet one is conspicuously lacking for these other substances - so where does the lawful authority come from to prohibit them?

2 points

It's prohibition is unlawful and unconstitutional in the first place, so yes, it should be legal. Property rights need to be restored.

It took a Constitutional Amendment to permit the US government to prohibit Alcohol - yet one is conspicuously lacking for all these other prohibited substances. While the States may have such a right to regulate business trade of substances (substance trafficking), generally they lack authority to interfere with private property rights.

I wouldn't use it even if it were legal though.

1 point

That isnt what the Establishment Clause means. What is means is that the US Govt cannot in ANY way promote any religion at all. The government of the US was formed to be purely secular, as in, indifferent to religion entirely. They are supposed to stay well away from it. -----

Cite your source for the legal decision determining that interpretation. Consistent with the interpretive understanding evident in the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers.

As for Swearing- Legal Maxims predate the Constitution, and govern it's lawful and legal interpretation. "To Swear is to call God as a witness and is an act of Divine Reverence." Prove otherwise. You should try reading a Legal Dictionary.

1 point

Read and understand the Constitutional texts and the legal maxims that interpret them. Atheists have never been legally permitted to run for office, all law to the contrary aside - such legislation is foundationally unconstitutional, despite it's appearance and unlawful acceptance. The reason being that an Atheist can not be trusted, owing to his non-belief in justice in an afterlife.

1 point

You haven't yet explained away the operative legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence," as found in the constitution.

Also, the congress that confirmed "The Star Spangled Banner" as our anthem, check the fourth verse of that song. It clearly states, "and this be our motto, 'In God is our trust.'"

1 point

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "respecting an establishment of religion." Come back after you've read a grammar dictionary.

0 points

The name by which one calls upon God is meaningless. Whether you say Allah, Yaweh, or God, or the one great and true creator, the meaning is intended to be the same.

Furthermore, putting an inscription on a coin is not establishing a religion, nor infringing upon the free exercise thereof. The money as taxed is not going to fund and establish a religion either, therefore it is entirely constitutional.

By the way, America was founded to be a nondenominational Christian nation, which one principle of Christianity is tolerance of other religious faiths. Thus the nation is Christian, but it makes no intent to force the practicing of the Christian religion on it's populace. Other religions are free to exercise. But it was not intended to allow Atheists to hold public office.

1 point

I agree, however, the Federal Reserve's Customer is the government of the United States, not the people of the United States. Unfortunately, the whole organisation is unconstitutional, but, not enough people care to do anything about it, so they remain, under color of law, lacking the true lawfulness of it.

1 point

Fun fact:

The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the Latin legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing."

Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States. America was founded as a nondenominational Christian nation, not a secular nation.

1 point

The Congress is not establishing a state religion, neither funding one. Thus it's constitutional. Furthermore, the money isn't even minted by the United States, it's minted by a private bank. The bank can put whatever the hell it wants on the money, so long as the money is made of gold and silver.

Any currency short of gold and silver however IS unconstitutional, and that's what we should be up in an uproar about, not the inscriptions upon the coins.

Fun fact:

The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing."

Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States.

1 point

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

respecting an establishment of religion.

Means congress can't set up a church, nor fund any church with tax money. That's it pure and simple.

Making money is not making a church, neither is that money going to the establishment of any religion.

Fun fact:

It's actually not unconstitutional (according to the US Constitution) for a State to establish a state religion. In fact, at the time of ratification, at least 2 states retained a state religion, until prevailing opinion later down the line caused their individual state constitutions to be amended to reflect a greater degree of freedom.

The 2nd Amendment binds the US congress only, not the congresses of the Several States. For that, you must look to your individual state constitutions for restrictions on congressional acts.

1 point

I skip two full meals and all snacks, or for the duration of approximately 24 hours, on the first Sunday of every month. Is that consistent enough for you?

Furthermore, my family had never had much money, we forwent a very large amount of luxuries, and bought secondhand, made ourselves, or picked up free stuff from acquaintances. We have never purchased a television since I was born, and the one we did use for most of my childhood was already old to begin with. We owned 1 working computer most of my childhood, and that computer was Black and white until we upgraded towards my teen years (I forget if it was a gift or if we bought it). Only very recently have we acquired enough computers for every family member, and most of those were acquired used, many of which were old when we got them. All monitors are still CRT except my personally purchased laptop. We never owned a game console either, and were subscribed to satellite TV for only about 1 year before finances dictated we cancel.

Were it not for assistance from our church's food pantry which is funded entirely from charitable donations, we would undoubtedly have gone hungry very often. As luck would have it, we have never been for the want of the basic necessities, for which I am thankful, but we have never lived a luxurious life either.

+

A free market however, one free from governmental intervention regulation, and exclusive taxes, WOULD solve most problems America faces today.

+

Unfortunately, as the case may be, government has created a system of catch-22 on our economy. Welfare is necessary because of the excessive tax and regulation on business, preventing people from setting up home businesses for themselves. And because welfare is necessary, it is thus required to further tax and regulate business for economic balance in favor of the welfare recipients.

You can't have one without the other, but both are unnecessary, however, the removal of one or both of them will cause such great economic turmoil and upheaval that further use of the same is absolutely necessary to prevent a meltdown.

Because we as society are obsessed with not falling down, we will continue to run headlong into the ocean and ultimately drown.

If we would but abolish it all, and start over, the grand economic reset would result in greater power and freedom and liberty and quality of life overall. We would have to nurse some broken limbs, and suffer a few growth pangs, but overall it would be the most ideal solution. Again as I said however, we as society are obsessed with avoiding this necessary pain, and as such will continue to suffer in increasing increments until we either destroy ourselves, or finally get it in our heads to change things for the better.

1 point

You have neglected the unspoken claim of life and self-preservation inherent to the fetus in question.

+

Comparatively, you have two fundamental rights of self-preservation, the mother's, and the fetus', and a third party's right, the father's, to come to the defense of another. This then means there are two claims of defense on whichever life the father chooses to save, while only one claim on the life of the other.

+

Furthermore, and irregardless of the father's choice, we have the rights of the innocent vs the rights of the less innocent. A child can not commit crime, even if it's birth results in the death of it's mother, whereas neither the mother nor the father have the right to destroy the life of another human, which includes a fetus.

+

A woman who is pregant, barring rape, consented to the risk of pregancy when she consented to the sexual relations. Regardless of how much protection was used, the mother was aware that the action inherently results in pregnancy, just as one who walks a tightrope is aware of the risk of falling to either side. A tightrope walker can not claim 100% protection from falling, despite the amount of insurance they take to prevent such an occurrence. If the ropewalker gets a broken arm by falling, they have to live with the broken arm until it heals, use of protection does not negate the brake when it happens; such is the same for a woman engaging in sexual intercourse who gets pregnant. Having consented to the risk of pregnancy, a woman has no claim of right when such actually occurs, save compensation or reimbursement for the failure itself.

+

Thus

A man choosing to side with the fetus, gives two claims of right to preservation to the fetus, over the woman's one right to her own. Furthermore, a woman gives up her claim of right to her body to a fetus when she engages in sexual intercourse. If she wished to retain that right, she should not have engaged in the behavior that induced such risk.

And a fetus, being an 100% innocent, has an inherently higher claim to life than any other human being.

1 point

While mud and humans are made from the exact same elements, earth and water, it is not the ingredients that give thinking potential but rather the organisational structure of those ingredients. Mud is not organized in such a manner as to permit it's thinking, thus it can not think, while humans are organized in such a manner, thus we do think.

1 point

Um, I think you need to look up the definition of hermaphrodite...

A hermaphrodite has both genders, not neither. A neutered person would have no gender, but a hermaphrodite has both. It stands to reason that there would need be a third gender to categorize hermaphrodites in. Being a reasoning creature with creative powers, humans can create such a gender just by thought. Thus, the gender of Hermaphrodite is born.

Mud has no brain organ or neuro-matter, which is necessary for an organism to think. Thus it can not think.

Mud has no self-growth ability, nor self-replication ability, thus it does not even count as a living organism, which is a pre-requisite to thinking.

Furthermore, thinking requires sentient self-awareness. Even animals do not possess such an ability, only a rational creature can think, and only humans possess the ability to be rational, excepting any sentient beings presently unknown to us.

unownmew(160) Clarified
1 point

The only theory which makes sense is social compact. Any other is entirely laughable, and easily disproven through basic logic.

If society had all power over the individual, to the extent of granting which rights are allowable and which were not, there could exist no such thing as revolution. By your logic, the moment the Declaration of Independence was signed, all Americans should have fallen dead, because Great Britain would no longer have the ability to grant them power over the continuance of their life. Furthermore, all their property would have been forfeit to the king, as they would have lost all power to keep property. Additionally, their weapons would have vanished into thin air or been impossible to pick up, and they would have been forced to surrender the Revolutionary war because there was no longer the legal right from the King to bear their arms in rebellion. Furthermore, if you think their state and local societies would have somehow magically secured these rights in spite of the lack of the king's society, think again. If society is what grants people rights and powers, in the absence of society, there could be no society to grant the power to the people to create a society to grant unto them the right to create that society.

+

You've created a catch-22 and a paradox.

+

You can legislate against breathing, but people will breath anyway, on the other hand, a bird does not need a society to tell it it has the power to fly, it will fly anyway. So also is it with humans. We have the inherent natural rights to create society and governments, or abolish them, or divorce from them as we so please. Whether we choose to exercise this power or not, is our own choice, it is not determinant upon a legislative body telling us how to act, neither can an army hold us back from rebelling to the death in spite of it's efforts.

+

Surely you can see how ridiculous and nonsensical this claim of no inherent natural human rights truly is?

+

A fetus does not need a law telling it it can live and grow, it will do so anyway, until such time as it either naturally ceases to function, or a greater power exercises undue violence upon it, unto it's death in the womb. And whomever causes such immoral destruction to a fetus is a murderer, whether society chooses to enact legal retribution upon them or not.

1 point

So, if I were to divorce myself from society entirel, I would instantly fall dead due to having no power over the keeping of my life, nor power to provide for myself the basic necessities to sustain that life, and no power to defend myself from the infringement of that life. And furthermore, being dead, I would have no power to pick up a stick and a rock and call it my property, nor power to create from that stick and rock a device for the procurement of my sustainment of the necessities of life, and self defense against infringement upon my life, which is now nonexistant, nor power to stake claim to a portion of land and call it my property, and with my stick and rock defend my claim to the death, or voluntarily abandon it for another claim. Neither would I, being dead, as having no power over the continuance of my life, be able to collaborate with other humans who have also divorced themselves from society and fallen immediately dead, or nondead humans still living in a society, into the formation of a voluntary contract, by which we establish our own society, whereupon those of us being dead, instantly come back to life due to the magical grant of the right and power of living by the society we have hence created.

Is this correct?

No, it's total ridiculous BS and you know it.

+

Whether I can secure my rights from infringement by my own power or not, does not mean I do not have the power to attempt to do so. How long I can continue to secure my rights is entirely dependant upon the amount of power I can exercise, but length of time does not negate the fact that during the time I was able to endure, I had full exercise of power over my choices. Whether I die or not, does not negate the fact that I can choose how I act and react. Society does not grant me the power to do anything, neither can it take away that power except proactively, and humans only voluntarily give up their inherent powers to a society for the cause of a greater good, and better self-preservation.

+

If this were not so, there would exist no such thing as criminals, because all humans would have only the powers granted them by society, and no society would grant humans the power to commit crime. Neither does society grant criminals the power to commit crime. All society can do is bring to bear equal or greater combined force from it's citizens' inherent natural powers, working in concert in attempt to enact retribution, which may or may not be successful in the attempt.


1 of 12 Pages: Next >>

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