- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
We need both more and less gun control.
"31 672 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2010 in the USA (10·1 per 100 000 people; mean state-specific count 631·5 [SD 629·1]). Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0·39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), ammunition background checks (0·18 [0·09–0·36]; p<0·0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0·16 [0·09–0·29]; p<0·0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000."
But not too busy to jump on createdebate and make dozens of debates and ban everyone who disagrees with you? You always get dodgey when you're wrong. Based on your reaction. and the fact that you couldn't bare to watch the whole video, I think you didn't like that you were wrong. Curious, what do you do when you disagree with someone that isn't on your debate? Do you flag the video?
In common with all resentful fools from the vast army of life's losers you mindlessly criticize the economic system upon which the world's trade is based without offering a viable alternative.
One has the capacity to think critically about something even if one doesn't have an alternative to a problem they might encounter with it.
You've failed to succeed in the highly competitive world of capitalism so you decide to throw your rattle out of the pram and start squealing.
My background, which that is not, has no bearing on the validity of my beliefs.
Instead of bawling like a spoilt brat why don't you show some mature leadership and submit your detailed proposals for a realistic replacement to capitalism?
Labor can include management.
The management of labor is not in itself labor.
There is nothing one if my employees do that I do not.
That means you are a laborer part of the time, and an exploiter 100% of the time.
Also anybody who owns stock is by proxy a part owner.
The commodification of ownership is radically capitalist. Stocks are an efficient way of passing the burden of the financial stability of a company onto the labor class, while offering the illusion of ownership. The largest shareholder, the 51% stockholder, still maintains all of the authority.
And if you think Marxian and Engelist economics have not been proven to be naively simplistic and unsound than I am not sure I can debate further.
You haven't given one real rebuttal as to why that might be true, just opinion after opinion.
As I don't have the time to give an Econ 101 primer.
We shall all now know that you, the Economics master, has graced us with your presence, even if none of your supposed knowledge is presented, you know, because you lack the time to provide any evidence for your claims. Let us know when you can pencil those in.
Workers DO produce and distribute the goods in a free market Capitalist society.
I never claimed otherwise.
Especially when they have stock or some vested interest in the company they work for.
That has no bearing on whether or not workers produce goods and services.
Or are you playing the Das Kapital Marxist card by claiming that business owners and corporate execs are not workers?
As someone else already stated, when we use the term worker in this context, we are referring to the labor class. Business owners and corporate executives, by your own unnecessarily redundant definition of the term, are not "workers", in that they do not produce or distribute the goods and services. What you are describing is management and corporate hierarchy.
But only big bad Bourgoise? And that likely humble workers constitute a beleaguered proletariat?
A capitalist business primary motive is to increase capital. You must've watched the video, right? If so, you haven't given me a rebuttal, and are just reacting emotionally.
This is outmoded thinking. Proven to be unsound.
You cannot 'disprove' a form of government or economy any more than you can disprove the existence of opinions.
Also not accurate of the USA system.