- 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.
Trump doesn't care about Israel . The only side he is on is the one that is making America great again. I'm ready to bet that Trump doesn't even know the history of Jerusalem.
The only reason he did this was to strengthen our hold on all the nuclear power Israel possesses. Its ideal placement next to Middle East will allow us to make oil "negotiations" more convincing.
We could have sucked up to Israel without rubbing our bony American ass in Jerusalem. There are so many problems ( including our own ) in this world and we chose to fart on an already blazing fire.
His act was a true fart. USELESS. Even if I am wrong about the true intentions behind this action, the Palestine / Israel problem causes violence and hate in the heart of brothers. This is what we do! We open our big mouth in the name justice and democracy and freedom and other American bullcrap without even thinking of the consequences that matter. Children, innocent women and men who just want to live their lives peacefully are further pulled away from a peaceful solution because of us. Of course we don't care! Americans will not be the ones touched by fear in the end. I find it disgusting and embarrassing because do you know who will suffer the most in the end ??? Israel and Palestine. America's actions will have minor consequences on Americans ( except maybe lowering our oil prices and allow us to continue selling weapons to Israel).
Are you suggesting that common behaviors are automatically just or legal? That doesn't sound right.
I am not suggesting anymore than what I wrote. The fact that it is regularly done makes it not uncommon.
What I do believe is that the same way we, the people, established limits to our freedom of speech, we could establish limits to our freedom to defend ourselves.
Ahhhh yeahhh. To some extent agree with you. I do believe that when debating, who you are should be not part of the debate. We aren't disputing identities we are disputing arguments.
For all I know you could be a pro life communist playing the devil's advocate. Does it matter in the context a debate?
Should we assume there are similar endings to other Constitutional amendments?
Nooo, it should not be assumed. It should be discussed. Like we are doing now.
The Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms. BUT the right is “not unlimited.”
None of our "rights" in the Constitution are unlimited.
I AGREE that if the right to guns is going to be limited in order to protect people then it should be limited fairly, using evidence. So, in order to do so the limit should be backed by evidence. Now maybe depressed people aren't the most dangerous. Maybe delusional people won't have a tendency to shoot a gun.
My point being it isn't unusual to put limits to our rights. We do it all the time...
Opinion is based on sentiment rather than shared reality.
Opinion is often relegated to the rank of false knowledge. But, it seems that opinion is actually not the opposite of knowledge, but its preamble. Before you know that fire burns, do you not feel its danger? You can see it is orange and feel the heat but you will only only know if you touch it.
You don't know fire burns. Ignorance
You believe fire burns. Opinion
You know fire burns. Knowledge
The utility of opinion varies but in the case of fire opinion could lead one to touch fire with caution.
In relations to food (I did choose to defend carrot juice), if most people in your restaurant believe your food tastes like horse crap, their opinion has meaning and importance because your job is to please most taste buds.
I'm still not sure where you are heading at but I'll shoot in the dark...
I understand that psychopaths are almost impossible to "detect" with one mental exam.That would require regular psychological sessions.
But what a "mental" exam could test for is cognitive functioning for example. An exam can screen for psychotic symptoms like hallucinations. A psychological exam can even test for impulsive tendencies and measure to what extent will someone listen to authority.
To rephrase your statement: You want me be to give you an example of how a criminal can pass the mental exam. Well my response is why on earth would I give a criminal the possibility to legally own a gun? He or she lost that right when they committed a crime... A criminal can't legally own a gun. I assume you knew that so that only means I misunderstood your argument. Could you elaborate your thoughts please?
Could you add more detail to the situation please? What is being tested for exactly? What are the criteria?
It isn't so absurd to have to pass a mental exam to get a gun... Doesn't the military, FBI and police officers have to pass all sorts of mental and physical fitness exams to be able to be on duty and manipulate a weapon? Why can't we require civilians to do the same?
For example, the police department in their psychological tests evaluate impulsiveness and response to stress. Is it absurd to require that police officers know how to properly think before they act (aka pull the trigger)? Why should civilians be exempt from that sort of psychological evaluation?