- New Activity
- Most Heated
- Most Recent
- Most Arguments
- Most Votes
- Debate Research
- My Debates
- My Waterfall
- Public Waterfall
- Newest Recruits
- Most Persuasive
- Most Provocative
- Most Outspoken
- Most Creative
- Alphabetically
- My Allies
- My Enemies
- My Hostiles
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
| Reward Points: | 62 |
Efficiency: ![]() | 99% |
| Arguments: | 52 |
| Debates: | 4 |
Going beyond the literary translation of the topic, the idea of a person who lives to eat is typically not the one who eats too much, but eats much more than he produces.. i.e., his contribution to the society in general is much lesser than what he takes from the society. They need not be eating too much, but exploit every chance of getting their meals free.
People who eat to live are those who contribute to the society by taking just enough for their requirements and in general leave a surplus for the society ( which gets swallowed up by the persons who live to eat ! )
"people, probably you included, take those chances everyday. There is a small chance that you would die in a car accident if you chose to drive somewhere, but people take that chance everyday." When you add all the possibilities of getting killed, road accident, lightning strikes, building collapses, etc etc etc, we already have a big probability of dying an accidental death.. the probability of getting killed by being mistaken ( or deliberately ) under this pretext would be adding to this possibility .. I could do without adding to this possiblity..
I have seen how evidence can be created / destroyed /tailored to suit a situation post facto. I have seen people turning a Nelson's eye to the incongruencies of evidence. and anyway, the evidences only go to rationalize an act which would otherwise be termed murder.
When someone kills me, and I'm dead, I have no doubt that people around me will say the same, i.e., that " Those police officers probably had a reason to shoot the man. I highly doubt that they did it just for the way he looked. " The sad part of it is that even those who have known me for years, will swallow it.
There are no universally acceptable morals. What is morally right in one society and at one period of time, may be totally wrong in another society and in another period of time. It may scandalize you, but even today, there are tribal societies in Assam, India, where it is considered morally right for a father of a girl to deflower his daughter. Sorry, that is disgusting, I know, but that is the dimension of morality. Think of the terrorists who think it is morally right to kill the infidels. Think of the church which sold indulgencies. Think of the church which imprisoned Galileo for his heliocentric theory. They, and along with them many near them, thought they were sane and reasonable people and that they had the right to do so.
"calculate the chance that you will be killed by someone who thinks that you are a terrorist and then see if you should keep acting like its reasonable to be scared of death by this mistake." In general, where there is even a .0001 % chance of my losing my life, then that is a chance, I would not like to take. My life to me is very very valuable and I love my life ! Secondly, 'evidence' is too specialized a subject for me to even think about, I've heard of concocted evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and fait accompli, mistake of fact, mistake of law .....I agree it is not a common situation, thank heavens for that, and I'd love for it to remain that way.
I wish I was really ignorant, but I have personally come across cases where even persons who were in positions of authority under law have been known to have abused their position to settle scores on some one in pursuit of their religious beliefs. I'm less fearful of looking like a terrorist, than I am of what is going on in the mind of someone who might think that killing me is their gateway to heaven !
"the chances of you running into a terrorist on a trip around the world is almost nothing. This world is not infested by terrorists." In an enterprising situation as contrasted with a gambling situation, one would think of what would be the consequence of the chance materializing, and one would avoid the risk if it can lead to death.
I wish I was really ignorant and not so cynical. I wish that when I hear the official version that the illegal immigrant shot dead a police officer and so they shot him dead 79 times using a full platoon, my mind gets suspicious as to whether the police officers were not acting on their hatred of illegal immigrants. When a person dubbed as a "terrorist" is found to have been shot in the back of his head at point blank range, I wonder what really was the motive..
" They would need ample evidence to suggest that your death would benefit society. They would have to see a bomb or some kind of weapon to even think about trying to kill you." I wish all people's minds were so clear and straightforward as that, but I know different, I know people can imagine ( in the name of god, yes, really ) that they have evidence that you are an "infidel", and that they see that in your death, their society will benefit !
I draw confidence to some of the most valuable provisions of law, which are : let a 100 guilty people escape, but not one innocent person should be punished. that governments should be of law, rather than of men.
It is not so much that I fear my appearance being mistaken for a terrorist that bothers me, as much as it bothers me that someone has the right to kill me because they think that it would benefit society. Murder, appearing to be a killing of a terrorist !
No way ! Google has taken computer information systems to the level of ( almost ) expert systems and decision support systems; and using this platform has made artificial intelligence come nearer to possibility.
Even after years of its existence, no other search engine has even come close to what is possible on google.
There is a saying "do unto others as you would be done by ". Living to an old age is indeed a blessing for anyone; you see more of life's bounteous beauty when you live longer. Part of the beauty of life comes in seeing your children grow up and have their own children and then their children having their own. If you are denied this you will never enjoy the extended life.
When you take care of your elders, notwithstanding the fact that they are helpless and sometimes a burden on your privacy, you are sending home a signal to your offspring that this is how you would also like to be treated when you grow old. If you even entertain the thought that you should subject your elders to euthanesia or inter them to old age homes, then that is the life you should also expect for yourselves when you grown old ..
I would treat our elderly people with respect and affection.
no, they are just wrongly distributed. China and India have a vast population which does not have enough land and resources to meet their needs and they are an ancient civilizatiion. On the other hand, US, Canada, and Australia which are relatively new nations do not have enough population to use the natural resources.
Sadly, there is a lot truth in the saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; '
While it is true that the teachers teach, it is also true that the students study and work themselves to the career as bankers or any other high paying jobs by dint of their hard work and application. And some students also make it to the top in spite of bad teachers. and some students become criminals in spite of the best teachers .
Nobody stopped the teacher from going in for top bankers' jobs, and certainly they knew as well as anybody else that teaching is a lowly paid job.
There is also another saying "don't brag. it is not the whistle that is pulling the train "
Public speaking is not a trade or a skill that you need in jobs or ever at all in your life ( except if you get to be an evangelist / politician ). But the discipline of thinking rigorously and articulating your thoughts is a trait worth aquiring for everyone irrespective of the walk of life he enters A public speaker is expected to prepare his speech, by analyzing his thoughts, organising them coherently and presenting them to an audience in a manner that they are able to understand what is being said. He has to be aware of whom he / she is talking to, what their thoughts are and then prepare his speech. He has to be good in his use of language. He has to learn to listen to others who may have an opposite view as his and appreciate the other view point. This exercise itself is of great benefit to people even in their own private lives, even when they 'talk to themselves ',
I feel that public speaking classes should be given as much if not more importance than other subjects taught in a classroom.
The very purpose of classroom teaching, as compared to being taught at home by a private tutor or governess, is to develop in the students an ability to work pleasantly and responsibly in a society. The asking of permission is not so much a show of power as it is of being polite and not disturbing / distracting to the teacher AND the rest of the class. There is a thing called 'decorum', the maintenance of which is the responsibility of all the members of that group and requesting for permission to leave the classroom is a requirement of decorum.
Indians will never learn from history. This nuclear deal that India has signed, is at the beginning of the cycle of history, when India lost its independence to the British. The British East India Company was a commercial outfit that came to India to buy Indian spices and gave the various kings of India arms and ammunitions as payment. To recover their debt , the Britishers East India Company took the payment in the form of rites for collecting taxes, and for which they needed to have their own soldiers and fortresses and clear control over the areas, and so on and so forth till they owned the entire country.
The nuclear deal is for supply of nuclear materials to India, so that India will be able to generate electricity.
Sounds very "reasonable".
The suppliers need to be assured that the supply will not be misutilised, by India, which naturally would entitle them to conduct "inspections" in India. And the intelligence would inform the suppliers that India is creating and holding weapons of mass destruction aimed at attacking the suppliers, and so they should go to India and remove another tyrannical leader ( of course the tyrannical leader has also murdered a large number of innocent people ! ) and hang him high and keep their armed forces till the country becomes democratic again ! (see the pattern ?)
Amen.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate BlogTake a Tour Help/FAQ Newsletter Archive |
Sharing Tools
Invite Your FriendsBookmarklets Partner Buttons RSS & XML Feeds |
Reach Out
AdvertiseContact Us Report Abuse |
Basic Stuff
User AgreementPrivacy Policy Sitemap Creative Commons |