- 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.
Bah, and you call yourself a ruler...
When I have eradicated 99.5% of the world's population then I shall name me the supreme hereditary monarch of the world. And my new kingdom (which will be called the "The Kingdom of Rhubarb", because I said so) will have ownership over all. It's time to cycle back around to Feudalism with the rightful king. I will need a royal court of some description so applications are open for either Chef or Jester or bother if someone can do a Gordon Ramsey impression.
To think that any group has some sort of race-based privilege seems rather absurd. Every human is an individual human whose life is affected by a countless number of variables and I am yet to see any conclusive evidence that takes all these into account and still finds a noticeable correlation. I really do detest the sort of collectivist mindset that would have us all categorised based upon race. I mean I do not have any sort of meaningful connection to everyone who is White and nor do I think we act as a collective or have gotten where we each are in life individually because of some unknown "privilege" we share and I assume it is the same with other ethnicities.
Its not like we hold annual "White People Meetings" to discuss what our next collective goal is. (I mean, at the very least I'm not invited to them... you're not keeping me out of the loop are you Bront? :P)
In a situation that is very much picking the lesser of two evils, I'm going to have to go with Trump. He is an incompetent, egotistical prick who I very much detest but unlike Hillary Clinton, I do not fear him.
Hillary is probably a far more likeable and respectful person than Donald Trump, however, she is also very pro-military intervention; for a large part of the Democratic Primaries she talked about how she wanted a no-fly zone over Syria. In doing so she failed to mention how Russia would impact on this and how much collateral damage and civilian casualties would be involved. Now while many Politicians do make promises which they do not keep (I'm still yet to see any process made on that wall Mr President...) the mindset of simply solving issues with military strength (Which lets be honest a no-fly zone would most certainly be) is not something I am comfortable with in the slightest. Especially coming from someone who could have been the leader of the worlds largest military and a country that is infamous for entering conflicts it did not belong in.
Lastly, the best thing about Trump (In my opinion at least) is the fact he is so hated by the media and a large portion of the U.S. population. This means many have held his actions up to the utmost scrutiny which I appreciate. In the long run, I feel this means that we will be able to clearly see what mistakes Trumps made and when the next election comes around (assuming he makes it that far which I am relatively confident he will) we should be able to have newer candidates (And hopefully better than what was on offer in 2016) who will be able to fix many of his mistakes with relative ease as we will have identified them well in advance considering how much attention follows Trump. I am not confident at all we could have expected the same level of scrutiny under a Clinton lead Democratic government.
So TLDR: I think Trump's an idiot, but at least we know he's an idiot and I think that makes him better than Hillary as I'm pretty sure she is a closet war-mongerer.
In either case, Trump & Clinton were by far not the best candidates the Republicans and Democrats put forward so here's hoping that something better comes along in 2020.
The point is not whether or not they'd be happy. Its whether Civil Rights are being violated. Obviously, if girls are not happy with the way Girl Scouts is being run then they should petition for change or even boycott the damn thing. One organisation shouldn't need to change because a different branch is failing.
Brontorptor and the other idiots on this site are not representative of the "right wing". Obviously, you would have to assume that some "right wingers" would be more than happy to remove the right to protest, just as some "left wingers" would also be willing to. Traditional conservatives in the US seem to hug the constitution like they do the Bible and I seriously doubt any libertarians or anarchists on the right would be wanting fewer rights. The left and right political spectrums are so large and all-encompassing that asking such broad questions such as "If right wingers COULD, would they take away your right to protest?" is always going to be near impossible to answer because of the sheer numbers of those on the "right".
Obviously, if you just meant Brontoraptor & FromWithin then I'd say yes in a heart beat...
As an individual, they are allowed to have their freedom of speech as given to them by the US Constitution. Although it is important to take into account that when they are on the field they are also representing their team and since they are employed by said team it is up to the employers to decide whether or not they are willing to continue to employ someone who acts in such a way because obviously not every NFL team wants to be dubbed "unpatriotic".
This means that while the NFL players have every right to kneel, their employers have every right to fire them because of it. And in my view, that is the way it should be. If you are not on the field, if you are not representing anything more than yourself and your views then, by all means, take a knee, flip the bird at the or even heil the damn thing. However, when you are representing a group, especially one that has employed you, you have to bear in mind that what you do has impacts on your employer and the company as a whole. To me, if you are not in a uniform do what anything that your right to free speech allows. But, when you are in a uniform you may suffer consequences for your actions.
So do I think NFL players should be allowed to take the knee? Yes. And if they do it in uniform and are representing a company I also think they should be able to be fired or at least punished for doing so. If it was my team and I employed the members on it I'd probably punishing them for giving the team bad PR but like I said, that's up to the employer.
No of course not, obviously I support the idea of an anarcho-syndaclist society. Mainly because it will be easier for me to establish my hereditary monarchy if everyone is prepared to share everything. In summary, we don't need a government, we just need ME to fulfil my destiny as the rightful ruler of this planet...
I mean even if for arguments sake, we agree that the U.S. has a problem with guns and the main cause of this is the guns themselves, banning an item outright is clearly not the answer. The issue with banning items after they have been mass produced and sold for a very long time is that people are not willing to part with them. It's likely you would end up with the same situation as the alcohol prohibition. Criminal organisations would see an oppurtunity and expand the black market to account for the ban. So instead of having guns be sold from a registered and government regulated business you would rather they are sold in a similar fashion to illegal drugs? Banning guns, regardless of the principle would be difficult and impractical to execute properly. Why not instead turn to look at the many other countires who also allow private citizens to own guns and see the differences they have? Or perhaps it's time to consider the idea that many of the problems in the U.S that are related to and lumped together with guns are affected by other things as well...