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.
Why does it not give us an objective definition or formula to determine what IS or IS not moral? If we encounter situations not detailed in the Bible, we are unprepared to determine God's prefered course of action.
Is there such a definition or formula that I simply am not aware of? And how do we deal with varient interpretations.
For something which is said to be objective, it is virtually impossible to NOT read it in a subjective sense.
In the "First Past the Post" Voting System (aka "FPTP" or "Winner Take All"), all voters get one, non-transferable vote and whoever gets the most wins. Although quick and simple, it is widely criticized for having numerous problems. First, it practically guarantees a two party system. This happens because people will avoid voting for a third party that is relatively similar to one of the major parties, even if that third party is their first choice. They do this because voting for their party, which is pretty much guaranteed to lose, "steals" votes from the major party they like best. Thus, the other major party wins, even if they technically have the minority of all total votes. This can cause many people to vote against the major party they dislike the most instead of voting FOR the one they most want to win. A two-party system inevitably arrives and is maintained by people being forced to vote strategically instead of honestly, leading to many people not really being represented properly by the government.
Additionally, this system is highly suspect to gerymandering. Gerymandering almost always gives an unfair advantage either to the incumbent or to one specific party, those essentially causing the votes for those people to "weigh more" than votes for the opponent.
There are multiple alternatives. I prefer single transferable vote myself, but a google search of voting methods will give you plenty to pick from. Is it worth the effort?
Should One Vote if they feel that our form of governance and voting system....
...is mutually exclusive with our personal philosophies and ideals?
For instance, people who do not support democracies, or people who feel that our voting methodology prevents us from BEING a democracy, would be forced to ignore those beliefs if they played by the rules. Therefore, a vote cast for any person or any law/tax/etc. would favor the perceived flaws in the system.
Failure to vote would not have the effect of boycott. Therefore not doing so would not advance your cause. However, if you view it as the difference between 0 and -1, it would be more in line with your actual beliefs than even voting for someone whose policies you support.
DC has announced their full production schedule for upcoming movies: Superman v Batman, Suicide Squad (both '16), Wonder Woman and Justice League Part 1 ('17), Flash and Aquaman ('18), Shazam and JL 2 (19), Cyborg and Green Lantern ('20).
But Man of Steel wasn't quite as well recieved as they seemed to think it would be. Indeed, the only franchise they have much luck with is Batman, and for now he is relegated to the JLA related movies.
Should they have gotten this ball rolling sooner to stay competitive with Marvel? Could it possible that we will be sick of Superhero movies before half of these start filming? And since they have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to know what audiences who aren't already DC fans are looking for, are they setting themselves up for a bunch of flops that will push them either further down in their rivalry with Marvel?
The character of Batman is a biollionaire by birth.
He is also one of the most athletic AND intelligent people on the planet...by birth.
His entire life is shaped by a horrible childhood tragedy.
He finds it almost impossible to form meaningful relationships with people.
He's an adult who spends most of his time hanging out with teeneagers, and none of them were his children until recently.
He's pretty damn close to insane.
Some of these are things few people can legitimately identify with, while others are things you wouldn't neccesarily WANT to identify with.
I think people claim he's relatable because he doesn't have powers, but that's a dumb criteria to use in the superhero genre.
50 years from now, aliens have made peaceful contact with Earth, and economic activity between the worlds is now happening. To fascilitate transfer of goods, and travel, a space port will be built somewhere on Earth or elsewhere in the solar system. Where should we put it?
In Philosophy of Mind, Substance dualism posits that things like mind and soul are non-physical and that mind and body are not identical. Where do you side?
↓ Show Details
