Xaeon's Waterfall RSS

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

That's not the analogy. Leaving the house and having sex are the equivalents. Both are choices made that can have potential problems. When leaving the house, and equally when having protected sex, the risk aspect is greatly reduced to a point where it shouldn't have a bearing on the decision to act.

So, the argument of not having protected sex if you can't afford an abortion is equivalent to saying don't leave the house if you can't afford any risks that may equally occur from that decision, such as being hit by a car.

Engaging in protected sex and leaving the house are both choices that can have negative consequences. Saying you should spend your life avoiding possibilities because of potential unlikely negatives is ridiculous.

1 point

"They still took the risk of pregnancy KNOWING that they may not be able to hold the burden. Why should we feel sorry for these people?"

Again I ask, are you advocating that finances should be a criteria in people having sex? Is that seriously what you're saying? Because to me, it looks like your argument is "don't have sex if you're poor."

1 point

The poll found 50% not wanting government run healthcare, and 47% wanting it. The poll itself has a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points.

2 points

I actually agree with almost all of what you said, apart from one or two tiny bits.

"Democracy incorporates Capitalism as the economic goal..."

I think a lot of the more successful democracies actually incorporate a good mix of capitalism and socialism. I don't think either as complete theories could ever be implemented successfully, however implemented together they seem to work very well. It's just such a shame that when implemented in its pure form, capitalism is great for those embracing it, but terrible for those who are the victims of it (e.g. Africa).

"keeping voters from taking away individual rights (unfortunately, politicians suck at reading the Constitution)."

Another unfortunate property of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which often leads to individual rights being taken away by the voting majority (as evident with proposition 8). Do you happen to think that that is an unfortunate property of democracy itself, or simply bad implementation? Maybe it's a symptom of what I call "collective morals," where as a group people will often agree that, just as a crude example, something needs to be done about healthcare, however when it actually comes to the time when they may have to dip their hands in their pockets, suddenly the collective morality of society as a whole doesn't actually fulfil its promise when we are given the choice as individuals. What do you think?

It seems such a shame that all of the experiments into communism so far have failed (though, they are always actually dictatorships disguised as communism from the very start). If communism could be applied in a way that stayed true to its original ideals, what would you think of communism then? (ie. What are your thoughts on communist theory rather than the failed implementations?)

1 point

Congratulations on the most stupid Reductio ad absurdum argument ever made. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

1 point

Just so we're clear, I'm not arguing that you are bigoted and I'm not. My argument is that everyone is bigoted about some things. What annoys me is when people (as you're doing) apply their own individual bias to a situation to excuse their views from having the property that they try to attach to others views because of that bias. I'm a bigot, you're a bigot. We all are about certain things. So...

"No, you're wrong. I never said that every liberal was a bigot. Or that every liberal attacks white people. A lot of them yes, but not all of them."

There's no difference between saying all or most, because both statements are clearly ludicrous, based on your individual bias, and bigoted. Have you met or spoken to most liberals? No. Therefore you are extending your individual bias beyond the realms of its actual limitation. You tar people with the same brush because they have differing views to you, and that is the very definition of bigotry. Do you understand? Does that make sense?

"There is a difference between criticism and straight up mocking and making fun of something."

Satire does not make bigotry. Bigotry in its nature must be both irrational and animus. I've personally seen you attack atheistic morals with both irrationality and ill feeling. I'm bigoted about your religion, just as you are bigoted about the lack of mine.

"That's not true, Thypyg is kind of a hybrid and leans to the left on some issues but I don't "attack" him. Same for anyone else, even liberals. Now I'm not perfect, sometimes I can be a jerk. But I have gotten better at not attacking people."

I have noticed you getting better at not attacking people. But the statement before that, about Pyg, is utterly irrelevant. You cannot pick one individual relationship that you have with someone and attempt to show that it proves you're not bigoted. In fact, this whole debate is an attack on liberals. You are literally doing the very thing you're accusing liberals of doing, which, quite frankly, is ridiculously hypocritical. But I suppose you'll try to find some way or worming out of it rather than just accepting it.

"please note that debating and attacking are not the same thing"

And attacks disguised as debates (such as your initial argument in this debate) are not the same thing either.

"Your right you don't have to have respect."

Exactly. I'm pretty sure you disagree with me on this point, so please explain why anyone's beliefs deserve any respect without earning it? Again, as I said, you're utterly entitled to have them. But claiming that they deserve any sort of respect is to attempt to stifle any critique or debate about those beliefs.

"You even have the right to be a bigot."

Yes we do.

"And you very often take advantage of those rights."

As do you, and as you did when you made your first argument on this debate.

1 point

"I never said that was the reason."

You don't have to say. It's clearly the reason. You're a conservative, and you've picked an entire group (liberals) to brand with the same label based on your opinions. That, by your very definition, is bigoted. I can't believe that you can't see the irony in this.

"Maybe the people that constantly attack white people"

Bigoted opinion number 1.

"Christianity, [religion it's self],"

I attack Christianity (and other religions) no more than you attack Atheists. I've seen plenty of debates where you've given inaccurate, biased and bigoted opinions of Atheist views. Get off your high horse.

"anyone who leans toward the right."

And in your case, anyone who leans to the left.

"Yeah, who does that sound like."

Like I said... it sounds a lot like you.

"Atheists also come to mind. Who are the ones and making fun of anyone who disagrees, comparing our god to Santa Clause and the easter bunny not having any respect for the beliefs of others. How arrogant could you be!"

Why do you presume that your beliefs deserve respect? You're certainly entitled to have them, but I absolutely do not have to respect them. They're based on absolutely no evidence, outdated, and provide a framework for people to express homosexual and misogynistic views whilst cowering behind their "religious freedoms." I'm sorry, but nothing in this world should be instantly granted respect; respect should be earned.

Anyway, as I said, all of the things you pointed out as being bigoted are things you yourself do. But, as always, you'll apply your own individual bias and believe (rather arrogantly) that when you do the exact same things you're currently speaking out against it isn't the same as when some "liberal" does it.

3 points

"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion... Who does this sound like?"

You. Calling liberals bigots because they have opinions that differ to yours is pretty bigoted, by your own definition.

1 point

"This has nothing to do with poor or rich people."

Unfortunately it does, because what is proposed is financial help for the poor towards the cost of an abortion; being rich or poor has everything to do with the argument. However, this is slightly different to what I am opposing, which is Joe's view that "People who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sexual intercourse."

Clearly, this is advocating a criteria on those who should be allowed to engage in sex, which is both ridiculous and naive. Paying for the abortions of those who cannot afford them when they are patently required isn't going to encourage people to have sex. I doubt the cost of an abortion would ever be something that is going through someone's mind when they decide to engage in sex.

The thing you have to decide is: do you just ignore the problem, or try to combat it? Allowing this regression of poor kids born to poor families, not to mention the fact that these kids are most likely unwanted, unplanned, and unlikely to be born with the proper financial planning which should always be a factor when having or planning to have a child, means that, in the long run, this child will mostly likely have a poor quality of upbringing and be more of a financial burden then initially paying for the abortion.

Sex happens, and you can't stop it. What you can do, however, is make a decision about how you best combat the rising gap between the poor and the rich in America, and how your tax dollars are best spent. Do you want 18 years of supporting a child through welfare (and most likely far more than 18 years), or do you want a small one-time financial burden, not to mention stopping an unwanted child who will most likely have a poor quality of life being bought into the world?

2 points

Just as I thought, avoid the point.

Why do you hate poor people so much Joe? Are you seriously saying that your solution to this is that if you're poor, you can't have sex, because there is a small chance that contraception may fail? Just so we're clear, is that actually what you're suggesting? That there should be a minimum criteria that you must meet to engage in something that humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years?

3 points

"Which is why people who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sex."

That's ridiculous. People who can't afford to be hit by a car shouldn't leave the house?

2 points

"We shouldn't be spending our tax money frivolously."


"We should spend it on useful things like national defense instead of abortions for women to stupid to realize that if they can't afford an abortion they should abstain from sexual intercourse and opt for a facial instead."

Think about the amount you'd pay in taxes for a single abortion compared to a lifetime of taxation to support an unwanted child born to a poor family. Incidentally (back to your silly idea that people should only be taxed for things they support) I'd rather have my taxes spent on an abortion then funding a military any day.

"I can't believe that you are actually abdicating telling women to go out and have sex..."

I'm not. I just happen to have some grasp on the real world, unlike yourself, who seems to think that women only have sex because they know they can have an abortion afterwards, which is ridiculously idiotic thinking.

"...and if they get pregnant that we will pay for her to have an abortion."

Try to understand the difference between the fantasy world you live in and the real world. People do have sex. Women do get pregnant. Sometimes, those women can't afford a child or are not in a position to properly care for a child. I would rather fund an abortion then allow an unwanted child which will either not be properly cared for or will be born to a family to poor to provide for it to be bought into world, which ultimately, statistics show you'll end up paying far more for in the long run.

What we're talking about here is funding abortions for the poor. Statistically, a child born to a poor family will itself end up being poor, which means you'll end up paying for support taxes such as welfare.

"What bone headed way of thinking is that?"

It's a way of thinking grounded in reality, not in your pie in the sky fantasy land where as soon as people think they can have a free abortion they're going to go out and start fucking anyone who comes along.

2 points

And thus you prove the absurdity of your argument.

I bet there are lots of things that you support that lots of other people don't, and thus things you feel important, such as border control and national defence, could end up not having enough funding to be able to operate. This is why you don't get a choice in exactly which specific initiatives that your taxes go towards.

If we all chose to only fund those initiatives which we ourselves support, it would spell the end of democracy.

4 points

I think that point is; should people against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan be forced to pay for that? Should people who don't have kids be forced to pay for the schools that are giving your kids an education? Should people without cars be forced to pay for roads? Should people with cars be forced to pay for mass transport like trains and buses? Should people completely against the idea of war fund the military at all? Should people who believe in open borders fund border control policies? Should people opposed to the whole idea of the penal system be forced to put a single cent into funding it? A simple yes or no will suffice.

4 points

"Nationalized health care is not for the benefit of the U.S."

That's opinion, and seeing as America is only 36th in the developed world for healthcare (behind a load of countries with nationalised healthcare, including the UK and Canada), it's clearly an uneducated opinion at that. Please explain how countries with nationalised healthcare are ahead of the US in the WHO rankings if nationalised healthcare can not be of benefit to a country?

"Stop trying to subvert this country with your socialist views. We didn't like the way the Brits ran their government before during and after the revolutionary war and we still haven't changed our minds. ;)"

Falling back on "blah blah communism/socialism" is admitting that you actually have no real arguments to make. Like Godwin's law, but less informed of political theory. Such a shame. And I don't like the way our government is run either, because it's run far too much like yours.

5 points

"I which [sic] the federal government did only those things spelled out in the constitution."

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

You mean like imposing a tax to provide for the general welfare of the United States by ensuring that all citizens are provided with healthcare?

1 point

So your idea of a truly free society without the horrific burden of taxation would be one where people can only go within walking distance, or, alternatively, the millions of people in the US dependant on going further than within walking distance would have to depend solely on businesses operating horse and cart services along dust tracks? What you're proposing with a society ithout taxation is a return the middle ages. That sound great. Sign me up.

2 points

I agree that that would be a fair argument, had the poll not asked about the salaries and social status of those questioned, which it did. One thing I did notice was a slightly larger number of people who voted for Obama, but also noticed (as a counter-balance) a larger number of people describing themselves as having conservative views.

"Polls have very little importance to me, when any."

I know I may have used it as a source, and I admit it was mainly show-boating on my part, but I agree with that completely. When you understand how easy it is to pose a question to be answered in the way you want it to be answered, polls (and referendums, for that matter) lose any real significance.

On reflection, I retract the poll and the argument made with it.

1 point

"Well actually I can because my tax dollars went towards it, whoops. ;) Had my tax dollars not gone towards it I would have paid for the service, just like I'm doing now, whoops. ;)"

I was clearly referencing my challenge to spend a week not using any services that were provided for or by through taxation. Without taxation, there would be no roads to drive on to get to work, there would be no internet to work from home. And you wouldn't be paying for the service because the service only existed because of the pulling together of funds. No matter how much you may like to think otherwise, you could not individually pay for the all the things that make your life the way it is.

Your continued insistence that you could survive and build a society similar to the one we have without taxation is incredibly naive.

1 point

Thank you for the information. This is, unfortunately, one of the downfalls of trying to debate US politics when not actually American. Could you provide a link to the correct bill for me please?

2 points

"Yeah..., I noticed. What cracks me up is that you took the time to contribute content to my debate which means that it was entertaining enough for you to participate lol"

I suppose I do find some strange entertainment value in shooting down your arguments every single time.

"Why would an Englishman care enough (one way or another) about U.S. politics to spend any time on it? It is all very interesting, no?"

The subject matter is interesting, and some of us are still interested in having an actual debate about the subject, because America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and therefore it's important that the example it sets is the right one. And, believe it or not, I believe everyone should be given certain rights, whether they're American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc, that's why the fact that this debate is occurring in America is irrelevant to me.

America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world still does things that defy belief. It annoys me that you try to help Africa with one hand, and implement policies that cripple it with the other. It annoys me that you attempt to fight terrorism, pulling us in for the ride and causing a terrorist attack in my city, whilst at the same time nearly every single terrorist organisation has been funded by the US. It annoys me that, even when your own country suffered a terrible natural disaster, no one cared because it happened to poor people (I'm talking about Katrina). And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it. That's why I get involved, and try to do my part (regardless of the fact that no one really cares on this site any more) to get involved in the debate and make my view heard.

And if you're wondering...

"Maybe he's thinking about moving to the U.S."

No, he's not. I don't want to live under your ideal of freedom and liberty to all (if you can afford it). Why the hell would I want to move to a country that doesn't give a crap about anyone else and continually tries to push its form of government down everyone's throat, even when they don't want it?

And you know what's really entertaining? The fact that every time we enter into an argument, you fall back on comedy rather than seeing through the actual debate. That just solidifies in my mind, with every single debate with have, that my views are right, moral, and justifiable. I can back mine up whilst you fall back into a corner and play the comedian card. At least have the balls to back up your views and see it through.

There was a time on this site where you actually used to fight your corner, but I suppose rather than modify your views in response to arguments that are obviously too compelling for you to be able to form arguments against, you'd rather just back down, forget about it, and continue to hold the views you do even though they've been tested time and time again and found to be lacking.

Pineapple had you absolutely pegged when she said: "Based on previous conversations, I am entirely convinced that you know nothing about this bill or the state of the country and the reasons we need it. Nor do I feel that you care to learn about it. Therefore, I don't accept your opinion as educated or valid." And it's a real shame.

2 points

Well, actually, you can't. You can't use the Internet as it was an innovation produced mostly by ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), both of which are agencies of the United States Department of Defense, and therefore publicly funded.


2 points

Follow the link I left (it's the one that says source at the end of the quote) and you'll find the exact report with that exact line in it.

Here it is again.

2 points

"I am NOT enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury of a highway because it is more of a parkway during rush hour traffic."

Then stay at home and don't use it. After all, you don't agree with taxes. Maybe you should spend a week not using any services that are paid for through taxation? That would be fun.

"Nor am I enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that take more than an hour to respond to anything."

That because they're dealing with all the gun crime. ;-)

1 of 37 Pages: Next >>

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