- 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.
You are so stupid.
First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning.
All reasoning is subjective. Humans arbitrate reasoning. All evidence points to this. There is no evidence to the contrary.
In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival.
It isn't arbitrarily determined. Biochemistry naturally makes complex molecules.
You are just rambling bullshit. All of it.
I don't agree with this, communism and socialism have both been tried and they always result in millions dead (hundreds of millions with communism).
Neither have been tried. Stalinism was dictatorial. In Stalin's Russia, value was not redefined as Marx wrote that it would need to be. In Stalin's Russia, the commoner did not direct through democratic process the product, amenities and infrastructure of the nation. Communism has not existed on Earth. There have been only dictatorships, which have hijacked the label of communism in pursuit of feudalistic agendas. Feudalism -- if you had read any Marx, you would know -- is the very first crux of oppression that Marx and Engels tackle in their Manifesto.
I personally think the path to progress that we have staked out is one of greater individual rights and self determination.
Socialism and communism (as Marx writes) are about self determination. Whereas oligarchy, feudalism, presidency and monarchy offer centralized power to a select individual or several individuals, Marxism offers a society that is bottom-up, not top-down.
This is shown in your examples of progress, it's always about empowering the individual insofar as is possible, not imposing collectivism.
Empowering the individual. This is a soundbite for capitalism. All it really means is, empowering those with might -- monetary, familial or otherwise -- against the majority.
The right to private property is one of the rights that we the citizenry had to fight for against our rulers.
Marxism doesn't demand that people give up property. Only that excessive proprietary holdings that by virtue of their private ownership diminish the utility of the working class, be surrendered to the public body: this is your railways, your oil wells, your mines, your power stations, your roads: anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage.
Under the centralized control of communism and socialism the people aren't even free to dissent, let alone own private property.
In capitalist society, dissent is only as effective as far as it aligns with the individualist paradigm. In Marx's writings, he explicitly goes against any form of censorship of dissent, because censorship is a tool that has always been used to oppress the lowest rungs of society. A society that gives a voice to the many, benefits the many. A society in which what can be said and not said is dictated by the few, is not a free society.
For someone so skeptical of the powerful, I find it interesting that you would want a group to have control over the entire economy and the distribution of wealth.
When that group is the majority, then the majority are the powerful: that's what democracy was SUPPOSED to be.
its against nature, as simple as that.
More than 1,500 species (and research has barely begun) have been shown to display homosexuality. Nature, it seems, doesn't agree with you.
whats so bad about having abortion?
This is a different issue, and ought to be debated within its own context. There is no correlation between abortion and homosexuality.
or whats so bad about hitting a kid?
Again, no correlation. You're just listing things you think are bad and then trying to tell us that if we allow homosexuality, we risk allowing all these things, too.
NEWSFLASH: These other things already happen. There are plenty of gay folks who think abortion is a bad thing. There are plenty of gay folks who believe that hitting kids is immoral.
If you don't support discrimination against gay people, then why are you trying to vilify by placing it in the same class as abortion or child abuse? That right there is a helluva justification for discrimination against gay people in the first place.
Natural laws of procreation
Nature is nature. Whatever exists living in the world, is PART of nature. That includes homosexual humans and buggering bonobos.
a mother is needed by the child foremost
Not a mother, a caregiver. That caregiver doesn't even have to be female. There are plenty of single dads out there.
If I were extremely wealthy, I would be quite happy to pay 50% or 60% or 70% of my income in taxes, if it meant the people in my country didn't have to suffer for basic human necessities. I pay 20 - 40% tax in the UK, on a modest wage, and I get student loan deductions taken from that as well. Meanwhile, multi-billion dollar corporations and rich conservative politicians bypass tax laws and end up paying nothing: then they hark on about the "benefits bill" and the "welfare state" as if it is the reason why poor people are poor.
Poor people are poor because most wages are shit, education costs too much, jobs are difficult to get and harder to keep, employers progressively seem to have less and less sense of duty or humanity, and huge, grotesquely rich corporations and individuals (the same ones on the TV blaming poor people for the world's problems) are avoiding paying their fair share.
I've been lucky enough to find a career that interests me, and I've earned my education -- I managed to get it started before the huge increases in living costs and tuition fees came about -- but the new generation of this country is going to be the first generation in history that is worse off than the one that came before them: and if you ask any British economist, they will tell you that it is because of the political and economic decisions of these kids' parents and grandparents.
In the 1960's in the UK, 640 hours work at the average wage would have bought an average priced home. In the 1970's, just over 1,300 hours at the average British wage would have bought an averagely priced home. Now, it would take the average wage-earner over 15,600 hours to buy the average-priced home.
That's not "millenial laziness" or "poor life choices" or "not knowing the value of work", or any of that other bullshit that older folks like to spew about. That's just plain fucking unadulterated, indisputable fact. Kids nowadays have it far, far harder when it comes to money and opportunity. And not only are the older generation wiling to vote them out of a better deal -- out of free healthcare and cheaper education and fairer wages -- but they're also willing to saddle these kids with the bills for their retirement. All these know-it-all crusty old bastards that take from these kids with one hand and shaft them up the ass with the other.
Total fecal mass is x. Total fertilizer production is (x - 30%). Therefore bananas are friendly.
What the fuck is this supposed to prove?
Proportionately, most people get a small fraction of their labour product. You posting some shit about cumulative American income versus gross GDP to prove "we get a fair share of the wealth we create" is moronic: we are most people. Or wait: Are you a billionaire? Do you get to leech 20% of your companies' profits every year for yourself?
Feudalism was forcefully implemented. Neocapitalism is necessarily a mode of suppression, and in this regard is not dissimilar to feudalism: for one person to rule, all others must bow, and for one person to "succeed" to immense financial wealth, many others must fail. This is why less than fifty individuals own over half the world's material wealth, and why almost half the population of the Earth live in what we in the Western world would call financial and material poverty.
Like title, money is most often inherited, and it is used just as effectively as title to oppress.
You and I, relatively speaking, have a far superior standard of life to may people across the world, but we are still born into a system we don't decide upon. And I can assure you, that once mankind siezes the power to determine how and for whom he creates wealth and propserity -- as a democratic unit -- there'll be no more billionaires and no more Kings and Queens, and with the right education, no more starving kids.
Capitalism is grotesque.
In the same few acres of space in the subcontinent you can find a merchant selling hundreds or thousands of tonnes of produce wrought from the labour of hundreds of impoverished, malnourished Indian women, and those same women cutting the bad pieces out of the cast-off onions to sell in order to buy minuscule helpings of staple foods, living barethread, shoeless, day-by-day.
Capitalism rewards immorality and heartlessness, and punishes anybody who dislikes that reality. It makes monsters out of people.
Your views are predicated upon the notion that a certain paradigmatically normative mode of economy is universally normative: in otherwords, you seem to think that because the interpretation of value is a certain way in a neocapitalist society, that it must or has to be that way.
This is what irks me about the armchair capitalist economist. You have a complete inability to think outside the box.
Yes, wages increased after the black death, labour was scarcer. But the society in which the black death took place was a feudalist shithole not unlike the quasi-fuedalism we "normal" citizens endure today under the oligarchy we are born into. The only real difference between then and now is that where hereditary title was the currency of power, now it is hereditary wealth, which coincidentally is where the vast majority of wealth is hoarded.
It takes a very dull mind and an even duller heart for a man to want to justify the deliberate starvation of the democratically driven economy -- what's meant to be for the benefit of the people and is usurped by the wealthy few -- by citing references to show that death by plague is great for increasing worker's wages.
What a moron.
There are a plethora of far superior circumstances that would allow for massive increase in living standards for the vast majority of people. The central hurdle to this is rather simple: we, citizens of "democratic" nations, who have been able to sieze the power of the vote, of rights, of democracy and parliament and who have bit by bit stripped the feudal lords of their superiority, have yet to extend our mass confiscation of powers as far as determining by democratic process where wealth is distributed and how economy functions.
Given the vote to decide, I would wager everything I own that tomorrow, by the hands of the voters: education would be fed by taxes, not profits; healthcare would be universal; medicine would be made by public companies, not private ones; wars would necessitate a vote of every man and woman, not simply the whim of a single individual; wages would not be the pittance that wealthy companymen can get away with, they would be fair proportions of the profits each worker toils to create.
And men like you would be the fringe-thinkers. Finally.