All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Think about this:
In the eyes of the law, it is ok for a man to deceive his partner and secretly go and have an affair. He won't be jailed for it.
But if the same man speaks to both females and tells them "hey, I love you both, do you both want to marry me" and they all agree to it, then that same man is up for jail time for polygamy.
So, should polygamy be legalized?
At first I wanted to ask "Why won't God heal amputees?".
But then it became evident that at the core of that question lies another one: Why doesn't God perform an act that proves his existence to the satisfaction of all humanity?
Would such an act have more negative consequences than positive ones? Is that why God doesn't want to do it?
Please take some time and use your imagination before you submit your thoughts. Imagine yourself in a world where we have definite and unquestionable proof of God's existence. How would that world be different to ours? Is it better or worse, and in what ways?
What is anti-Semitism today?
Is it a real and continuous danger that requires eternal vigilance
or
a tactic used by right-wing Zionists to discredit and cow their critics?
The full quote is:
"Man made God in his own image. The eternal, the infinite and the unnameable reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or your God." (by Eckhart Tolle)
For me, the beauty of this quote rests with the fact that it does not deny the existence of a "God". It is a sincere reflection that speaks deep and directly to your consciousness, and it disolves all the mental noise and dust that has accumulated through the millenia on the subject of "God".
In the latest episode titled "200", South Park has addressed, once again, the issue of showing an image of Muhammad.
In an attempt to not provoke terrorist retaliation, the town dresses the prophet in a bear suit to conceal his image, and the prophet is carefully transported from place to place in ways that hide his appearance.
The plot continues in this weeks next episode titled "201" and many are speculating if Comedy Central will allow the image to be shown.
It should be noted that South Park has already shown an image of the prophet in the episode "Super Best Friends" aired in 2001 (prior to 9/11) in which he was shown to be part of a super hero league comprised of prophets of all religions. That episode did not provoke a reaction from the Muslim community (perhaps because he was shown in a positive light?).
Skip a few years however (post 9/11), and things are different. A Denmark newspaper prints a few cartoons of the prophet carrying bombs. This sparks an outcry from the Muslim community and death threats start to fly in every direction. At this point South Park aires an episode ("Cartoon Wars") which addresses this very issue, but in the end Comedy Central censored the image with a black square and a note stating their refusal to show the image.
This time however, it looks like creators Tray Parker and Matt Stone are back to settle the issue once and for all.
Do you think South Park should show the image of the prophet or not?
How should the law deal with siamese twins when only one has committed a crime?
This is a really hard one, because you if you place the guilty one in jail you are also jailing the innocent conjoined twin.
And in the eyes of the law, making sure an innocent person is not punished is more important than the pursuit of punishment for the guilty.
So how should the law deal with a situation where only one of the conjoined twins has committed a serious crime (i.e. murder)?
Please read the news story if you are not familiar with it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm
So what is a minaret?
A minaret is a tower that adjoins a mosque. The original purpose of a minaret was to allow a muezzin to call people to prayer in that neighborhood. Some minarets are still functional in that regard although, with the use of public address systems, loud speakers today are frequently attached to the minaret instead. Most mosques have only one minaret, many of which are placed in the direction of the qibla, which shows the direction in which Muslims pray (toward the city of Makkah). However, some mosques may have more than one minaret. Minarets are also somewhat like church steeples in that people can tell from a distance which building is the mosque.
I went to see that 2012 movie last night and it got me thinking.
This urge for wanting to predict the end of the world has been with us for a long time.
It seems that humans, throughout the ages, have wanted to see the end of the world happen in their lifetime.
So big is this urge, that Hollywood is making billions on selling us the visions that we obviously fantasize about.
Do you wish for it to happen in your lifetime (so you can see it) and why?
The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. (Wiki)
Is the UK better off not having a written constitution?
Are we better off no having to obey an entrenched and rigid document?
If you were in a ship that was sinking and someone shouted the above sentence, would you be a gent and oblidge?
In today's post feminist society, would men give way to women as they do for children?
There are many women out there who trick their husbands/boyfriends/buddies into getting them pregnant.
Example: Sarah gets Tony seriously drunk until he is out of it. In his last drink she puts Viagra in. So while Tony is out of it (with a hard on!) Sarah proceeds with the deceit. Before you know it, Sarah is pregnant.
Other forms of deceit: piercing the condoms with a neadle, lieing about taking the pill, etc.
Provided that the man can prove the deceit, or given that the woman admits it, should a man have the right to abortion?
Please take some time to watch the following videos.
They are long, but damn they are worth it.
They explain a LOT about the economy, war, politics, religion.
Watch them to the end.
Zeitgeist:Addendum
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
Zeitgeist, The Movie - Final Edition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197
This is not a debate about people who are alive and were born with disabilities.
This is a debate about the screening of fetuses for disabilities.
Pregancy screenings have enabled us to know whether the fetus carries a disability or not.
Should we stop disable people from being born?
The format is pretty much the same everywhere.
There is a stage. There is 3-4 "judges", each one with a predisposition to being nasty, nice or neutral. Then a whole array of "talented" people expose themselves to the crowd and the judges. Some are borderline handicapped mentally. Others are truly talented, whatever that means. But the cherry on the cake is that they all have a tragedy they feel compelled to share with the rest of the world. If they are not doing it for the uncle they lost in Iraq, they are usually doing it for their mum "who straggled so much to raise me the right way".
Are these shows detrimental to our society?
The police needs a warrant from a judge to tap your phone, search your house, look into your accounts etc etc.And yet it seems silently acceptable for the press to break the law in order to get information on celebrities, politicians and all sorts of public figures.Should a reporter be puniched for breaking privacy laws without a warrant from a judge?
Don't you love those clinical experiments? :o)
writeFlash({"loop":false,"wmode":"window","src":"http://www.youtube.com/v/cy-7AoxFEJA","width":"425","height":"350"});
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-7AoxFEJA
(why does video embedding not work >:o( anyone help?)