- 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.
I'm not saying I like taxes, I'm not saying all taxes are necessary, I'm not saying we should tax more, and I'm not saying we shouldn't tax less. All I'm saying is hysteria over US taxes is blown way out of proportion. And we're ready to let some things stagnate and fail over it. Craziness.
Let me be clear - I'm not pro-Obamacare - I'm simply against doing dumb stuff without a solid back-up plan for the consequences or which simply makes the rich richer while the poor die. And indeed many of the people who voted against are that same way, too - not ready to roll the dice on killing what exists when the alternative could be non-existent or a worse situation.
If they were vegan only because of health choices then no, level of ethics would not apply, BUT, for those who are vegan primarily because of respect for animal life it is fair to say they are "more ethical". And I arrive at that because they are choosing to live by a very strict diet code based on those beliefs. So much more effort goes into the lifestyle than for an omnivore. A comparison might be the question is a church minister more ethical than the average person. Yes, because they are more closely following a code of behavior based on their beliefs when compared to a typical average person.
But in both the vegan and the church minister examples the conclusion they are "more ethical" does not mean they are better people. In both cases the merit of things believed can be thoroughly debated. Just for one, I honestly don't understand why animal life is considered superior to plant life and thus not to be eaten. It takes all kinds of life to keep the ecosystem going. A rat is not automatically superior or higher in merit than an apple tree. Plus I believe analysis of our teeth and physiologies amply confirms we are omnivores, and if a living thing is doing what it was physically designed to do then you can't really fault it as being unethical.
I don't know about either of those guys or their involvements during the Democrat KKK days. But then again I never was a Democrat. That's not something I need to defend
And if an entire demographic switched parties it would either have to be because the original party really screwed them somehow OR that they were duped by the biggest pack of lies and not just for one year but for decades. But I have a hard time believing the entire African American population isn't smart enough to choose for their own best interests.
Eventually, I just don't see why it needs to happen anytime soon. And even if Russia or China were able to do it first I find it hard to believe that will automatically give them some sort of insurmountable advantage which the US couldn't overcome. It's not like during the initial space race when the technology also cross applied to missiles and satellites and such. We already know how to make those things. And the trip to Mars would be just the latest evolution of those already understood things. The most likely outcome of a successful trip would simply be the ability to sustain human life in an environment that is not the earth, and that's indeed useful, but it's not (yet) a matter of national security to know how to do that.
We're doing great work with probes and rovers and such. Why can't we continue to do this and learn by remote control instead of sending live people there?
I'm going to say no based on his claim he is a legless Cherokee veteran retiree with a robotic arm. It's hard to imagine getting out much in that scenario.
Personally I'm on here a lot because most of my work is by e-mail and cell phone and imbetween tasks I'm able to pop in and out all day. It's possible he could be in the same situation but who knows?