CreateDebate


Xaeon's Waterfall RSS

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

If it's about entertainment value, when are you going to start being entertaining?

(Haha. See what I did there? I implied that you're not funny.)

3 points

"I don't have to actually read the primary sources myself because the fact is that I don't want to be tax at a higher rate, period."

Did you not read the part about all insurance premiums going down?

"Anything less than that is highway robbery."

Talking about highways, how are you enjoying that socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury? Talking about robbery, how are you enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that keep you safe? :-)

1 point

Here's exactly how the poll was carried out. If you can find fault, do so (rather than just ignoring it because of who it is).

And again, here are the questions that were asked.

Please, I beg you, provide a meaningful rebuke to the poll's questions or methods. I did so with your source, so do me the pleasure of returning the favour.

I actually check my sources first.

4 points

“Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.”

You pay a tax to support a service. If tax needs to be increased or decreased to modify the service to better suit the needs of the population, what exactly is the problem with that? The amount of tax you pay changes often depending on the state of the country and reform to services provided. This is whining for the sake of whining. Anyway, let's go to the actual text to really see what's being said:

"MANNER OF NEGOTIATION- The Secretary shall negotiate such rates in a manner that results in payment rates that are not lower, in the aggregate, than rates under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and not higher, in the aggregate, than the average rates paid by other Qualified Health Benefits Plan offering entities for services and health care providers." [source]

So, you won't be forced to pay any more than the average going rate for healthcare, ever. That is written in to this bill.

“Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.”

There is no section 59. It starts at section 101. Incidentally, there is also no 159, 259, 359, or 459 to speak of. Great source you got there Joe.

“On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.”

This is absolute crap. Do you actually read the primary sources yourself or do you rely on poor journalism to give you incorrect facts about the sources?

Here is what the report actually says:

"CBO estimates that the combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. The average reductions would be larger in the markets for small group and individually purchased policies,

which are the focus of many of the legislation’s provisions. In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law. And in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO’s estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example. " [source]

2 points

The problem is that 72% of the country actually WANTS a nationalised healthcare system. [source] What the government is actually hearing is the vast majority of the country saying "Hell Yeah."

1 point

I happened to find Pinocchio performing what appeared to be anal sex on Tinkerbell with his nose absolutely charming.

2 points

That's bullshit, and you know it. You simply can't argue the irrefutable fact that the US was not set up as a Christian country. Here are some more sources, including an actual scan of the paper that the treaty was written on:

http://nobeliefs.com/document.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html (mid-way down the page).

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ bar1796t.asp#art11

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

5 points

"...but we also need to realize what this nation was founded on... GOD. One nation under God~!"

No it wasn't. Do you know what Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli is? It was a declaration of peace between The United States and the Tripoli of Barbary, signed in 1796 (only 20 years after the Declaration of Independence), which stated:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [source]

3 points

"Name one Republican ruled state that is in trouble there is none."

One of the states the mentioned literally four words back, California, has a Republican governor, as does Minnisota.

2 points

"This is ONLY for those who oppose homosexuality, homophobics, those who oppose homosexuality within their family."

I oppose homophobia, so I guess I'm in, right? If, as I beleive it is, that is actually a mistake on your part, then why even bother? What's the point of starting a debate, and only allowing people who agree with your view to post?

Anyway, I have absolutely no worry that a child of mine will be gay. Their sexuality will be absolutely none of my business. As I don't adhere to a religious foundation that teaches homosexuality to be wrong or immoral, I can find absolutely no reason to feel any differently about homosexuals than straight people. There's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and therefore I don't worry about my child being so.

4 points

"There was a movie in the footsteps of yeti or something of that sort, though i don't know the exact name! It argues that humans were first yetis and that they all were just parting from that place, and they lost hair due to heat and became men! Isn't that suckingly wierd?"

Bad film plots do not count as scientific theories.

5 points

"Firstly - Arranged marriages are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to FORCED MARRIAGES."

No they're not. An arranged marriage is essentially a third party selecting your future partner and a person who you have to spend your entire life with. If the third part is selecting, and the selection of that third party holds regardless of the wishes of those being engaged into marriage, that is the very definition of a forced marriage. I'm sure it would be great for yourself, being male; having a wife selected for you who can, as you believe a women's job should be, be great in the kitchen.

It's not so great for the wife though, being arranged without any choice, in to a loveless and forced marriage of convenience. Women are not commodities. Marriage should be a commitment between two people based on a foundation of love and trust.

2 points

Although I don't want to actually get involved in the debate as a whole, I did just have one point that I wanted to make.

"Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about."

It is actually now thought that "domesticated" cats are the product of natural selection in response to Human agriculture, rather than direct artificial selection for favourable characteristics. So in a way, the evolutionary path to domestication does differ between dogs and cats.

5 points

Firstly we must establish that justice is indeed mutable when concerning law within a democratic political system before we discuss measures of righteousness or solutions for dealing with a lack of such.

The majority of western justice systems include measures to amend the law through either the courts or government (in some cases, both). In fact, nearly every democratic country has measures for law addition or amendment by the government. Whilst democracy itself is purely a system of government rather than a statute for how justice is to be determined or whether it be by the elected government, the political theory behind democracy clearly includes the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Whilst not implicitly stated, it is implied within the very values of democracy that a democratic government should have the power to amend the justice system to better reflect the principle of all citizens being equal before the law.

So, we assume for the remainder of this argument that the justice system is intimately entangled with the principle of a democratic governance system, and therefore measures of a democracy's "righteousness" can theoretically be performed on the quality of the justice system. This measure, as laid out in the description for this debate, should be discretely measurable.

What is far harder to assert within the context of this debate is whether a measure of the righteousness of a democracy in regards to its justice system is even possible, and if so, whether this should affect the ability to amend the law. Scientific measurability is extremely difficult to perform on something that is firmly routed in concept rather than physicality. How exactly does one measure righteousness, and how does one apply that inexact measurement to something as complex as an entire nation's justice system?

Measures of the ability of a justice system are usually performed on conviction rates, or some other measure of effectiveness of conviction or reduction of criminality. However, the current amount of offenders currently being processed (either in prison or awaiting a trial, etc) within the justice system is simply a measure of the effectiveness of the implementation of the laws in place and the effectiveness of enforcing those laws. This is evidently no measure of how right (morally or otherwise) those laws are, or how right the enforcement of those laws are. How do we even begin to discretely quantify a measure of righteousness, and even if we jump that hurdle, how do we apply it to laws? The simple answer, and the one posited at the beginning of this debate, is that we are unable to effectively measure (in any scientific manner, at least) how righteous a law or the enforcement of said law is.

However, I disagree entirely with the solution suggested. I would even go so far as to say that a lack of any scientific measure of the righteousness of justice would in fact point to a solution that specifies that justice must be mutable.

If we ever found an effective measure of righteousness, then justice would be eternal. We would create our laws, create measures to enforce those laws, set up a fair justice system and then effectively end any discussion of what is and isn't fair and just. This assumes an absolute morality though. This would be the only situation where we could have an immutable justice system, because there would never be a need to modify it.

Morals and society change. What would be classed as both morally and legally acceptable even a hundred years ago may now be deemed wrong and illegal. Is this because society was moulded by changes in justice, or was justice moulded by changes in society? (This is most likely a subject best kept to another debate, as it is extremely wide ranging). I suggest that society is always at the forefront when it comes to either justice or morality.

The morals of society drive and mould justice, and this is heavily reflected in the way that the current democratic systems work. Actual governing is carried out by the people governed or the power to do so is granted by them. Members of society choose to elect leaders who, in turn, reflect the wishes of the people within the law. Society picks it government, and its government amends the laws based on the will of the people. (Again, this is something that can be left to another debate: is democracy really the will of the people, or a charade of such?).

If we stick purely to the theoretical aspects of democratic government, it should hold that justice is entirely mutable, and, in fact, a mutable justice system (one with an effective measurement of its righteousness other than by reflecting the wishes of the people) is one of the indicators of a democratic government.

2 points

"I still stand by my point that NO WAR is justified."

So declaring war with Germany in 1939 wasn't justified?

3 points

Go on then. Hit me with a 50+ IQ question, but make sure it's a good one. This site could do with raising the IQ level a bit.

4 points

"your an idiot"

Good start. I think you mean "you're."

"without fire eveporation dosent accur (sic)"

Yes it does. Solar energy causes evaporation of water. This is a standard part of the water cycle.

"fire will just attack the person who has the oxygen if you attck with air you give oxygen to the fire"

I'm sure I explained this very very clear in my post.

"if you want to no about the elements ask me cause you are weak (sic)"

I think I'm fine on my own thanks.

1 point

"Then it would be VERY, VERY difficult for you to understand where I'm coming from."

I understand. I just think you're wrong.

"Read the disclaimer.. sigh... will you please stop with this xenophobic bs... I'm glad you found a wiki article about it... but don't keep bringing it up here."

I'm sorry if being told the truth annoys you. And I don't use Wikis, just my natural intelligence. ;-)

1 point

"When you ask a Brit why he's proud of being a Brit.. would he not bring the past into it? Say because it was one of the greatest empires ever? How powerful it was? Started the industrial revolution and is now one of the most influential nations etc. etc.?"

Some will, and some won't. That's the point. You're stereotyping to create a negative portrayal of white British citizens. Not a single one of those things is a part of my identity and I wouldn't mention a single one of those if someone asked me why I'm proud to be British. (Quite frankly, I find the idea of being proud of where you happened to be born pointless.)

I don't identify myself as a reflection of my country's current or past actions. My identity is my doing, not the collection actions of people who happen to live on the same bit of land mass as me.

"then it's wrong for anybody to dislike anybody (in terms of races/nations).. and I'm pretty sure you dislike French. ;)"

I have absolutely no problem at all with French people. I don't see any sense in essentially grouping together individuals under a collective label and having any feelings, positive or negative, about that group.

You can continue to deny that you're being xenophobic, but I'm sorry, you are. Whether you feel you have a justification to be so or not is irrelevant. People who are racists feel equally that they have justification for their cause, and they, like you, are misguided.

1 point

"Xenophobic. I like that. Too bad it's not me though..."

Well, you're doing a very good job of portraying yourself as xenophobic.

"Tell you what.. read upon the history between India and Britain. Read the Indian biased sides, read the British biased sides.."

I know exactly what the history is, and I'm sorry but it's completely and utterly irrelevant.

"THEN tell me why I shouldn't dislike whites. Or have feelings of bitterness at the least."

Because I have no control over history. What my ancestors did to your ancestors is irrelevant in how modern British culture should be portrayed, and is not, in my opinion, a valid justification for the way you feel.

1 point

"Home invasions almost always means that they are just there for your stuff."

Actually, yes. Thousands of burglaries happen every day, and I'm sure in a lot of cases they happen when people are at home. There are not, however, thousands of the scenario you described. So, yes, home invasion almost always means that they are there for your stuff.

"Uh, who's going to collect the insurance?"

If they were to burgle my house, then me. I'd buy some nice shiny new shit, and enjoy it knowing that I didn't get shot in the face because I tried to be a hero.

1 point

Firstly, I'm an Atheist, so no problem with Abrahamic religion there. Secondly, I dislike capitalism because of what it causes to those outside of the capitalist "bubble"; imperialism, poverty, oppression, exploitation and abuse of human rights. Those inside the capitalist society live it up by exploiting those outside of it; as is the case with Africa. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thirdly, democratic politics doesn't work with a majority of centrist parties, as is the case in the UK. Democracy should work, and is by far the best possible system of politics, but it's ruined by capitalism's influence. The affluent become politicians, and politics makes you affluent.

So there you go; stereotype broken. I'm yet to see justification from you. Enjoy living your life with the burden of a xenophobic outlook.

1 point

I'm British, so explain to me exactly what you hate about my morals, politics, culture and religion.

3 points

"For example, many of us don't like the Iranians because of their threat to the world, not because they practice Islam and have tan/brown skin."

That's still not a morally valid position to hold. For example, would it be acceptable for me to say I hate Americans because I think that their (ex) president was a war-mongerer? No, of course not, because the actions of your president do not reflect on the individuals.

The same with Iranians. Just because their leader is a nutcase doesn't mean that you should hate Iranians. It's exactly the same as the OP's xenophobic stance.


2 of 37 Pages: << Prev Next >>

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