Not a great deal has changed, some features added, some removed. I remember a time before Andy, and a time before trolls made up the majority of the user-base, (when Joe was the exception not the rule lol). I stopped participating gradually because I was growing up a lot, I joined at 18 years old believe it or not. The lack of meaningful engagement was another
We need both more and less gun control.
-
"31 672 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2010 in the USA (10·1 per 100 000 people; mean state-specific count 631·5 [SD 629·1]). Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0·39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), ammunition background checks (0·18 [0·09–0·36]; p<0·0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0·16 [0·09–0·29]; p<0·0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000."
Oh yes. The title track from Atom Heart Mother..... phenomenal. If is also a horrendously underrated song from that album.
One of these days I'll get around to Meddle...
But not too busy to jump on createdebate and make dozens of debates and ban everyone who disagrees with you? You always get dodgey when you're wrong. Based on your reaction. and the fact that you couldn't bare to watch the whole video, I think you didn't like that you were wrong. Curious, what do you do when you disagree with someone that isn't on your debate? Do you flag the video?
In common with all resentful fools from the vast army of life's losers you mindlessly criticize the economic system upon which the world's trade is based without offering a viable alternative.
One has the capacity to think critically about something even if one doesn't have an alternative to a problem they might encounter with it.
You've failed to succeed in the highly competitive world of capitalism so you decide to throw your rattle out of the pram and start squealing.
My background, which that is not, has no bearing on the validity of my beliefs.
Instead of bawling like a spoilt brat why don't you show some mature leadership and submit your detailed proposals for a realistic replacement to capitalism?
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/
Labor can include management.
The management of labor is not in itself labor.
There is nothing one if my employees do that I do not.
That means you are a laborer part of the time, and an exploiter 100% of the time.
Also anybody who owns stock is by proxy a part owner.
The commodification of ownership is radically capitalist. Stocks are an efficient way of passing the burden of the financial stability of a company onto the labor class, while offering the illusion of ownership. The largest shareholder, the 51% stockholder, still maintains all of the authority.
And if you think Marxian and Engelist economics have not been proven to be naively simplistic and unsound than I am not sure I can debate further.
You haven't given one real rebuttal as to why that might be true, just opinion after opinion.
As I don't have the time to give an Econ 101 primer.
We shall all now know that you, the Economics master, has graced us with your presence, even if none of your supposed knowledge is presented, you know, because you lack the time to provide any evidence for your claims. Let us know when you can pencil those in.
Workers DO produce and distribute the goods in a free market Capitalist society.
I never claimed otherwise.
Especially when they have stock or some vested interest in the company they work for.
That has no bearing on whether or not workers produce goods and services.
Or are you playing the Das Kapital Marxist card by claiming that business owners and corporate execs are not workers?
As someone else already stated, when we use the term worker in this context, we are referring to the labor class. Business owners and corporate executives, by your own unnecessarily redundant definition of the term, are not "workers", in that they do not produce or distribute the goods and services. What you are describing is management and corporate hierarchy.
But only big bad Bourgoise? And that likely humble workers constitute a beleaguered proletariat?
A capitalist business primary motive is to increase capital. You must've watched the video, right? If so, you haven't given me a rebuttal, and are just reacting emotionally.
This is outmoded thinking. Proven to be unsound.
You cannot 'disprove' a form of government or economy any more than you can disprove the existence of opinions.
Also not accurate of the USA system.
Be specific.
-
I'm a libertarian socialist. I advocate an economy where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods.
What the fuck are you talking about? Let me take a few screenshots and show you what I'm talking about. Also, what the fuck is your problem? You're acting like I attacked you personally when I'm just pointing out a flaw in the HTML code.
Note the blue border that is only suppose to extend as far as your debate description but instead stretches all the way down past all the comments. You can see it here.
honestly, that was me. I suppose there's nothing wrong with your argument, but it just wasn't convincing to me. was kinda a knee jerk reaction, but meh.
I prefer a response over just a downvote; at least a response gives us a chance to hash out why we disagree,. I appreciate it.
-
I have trouble with the notion of anyone using the bathroom the same time as me.
This is an issue with your own personal comfort, and has nothing to do with allowing transgender individuals into the bathroom of their gender.
-
Europeans who don't understand the culture of the "Buffer urinal" trans people with the equipment would likely not understand this convention.
This is a reflection of your personal biases towards Europeans. Again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If anything it seems like you're grouping these two things together, when there is no reason for it. Your fear that trans people won't get the bathroom conventions is poor at best. No one can know a particular region or gender's bathroom etiquette without having never had an opportunity, That said, people aren't completely socially unaware, and it's pretty easy to tell if something someone is doing is socially unaccepted.
-
and then they'd think I was being trans-phobic because because of my clear disdain for taking the urinal right beside me.
Your fear of being perceived as transphobic is not only convolutedly meta, but also misplaced. That trans person is going to be way more uncomfortable than you are going in, and way more comfortable than going into a bathroom they don't identify with. Strictly quantitatively, there is less discomfort entropy in this configuration.
Further, how are you ever going to know if the person the stall over is standing too close to you because they're transgender? That happens all the time already, and it seems like you are choosing a convenient scapegoat for your discomfort with trans individuals in blaming bathroom etiquette.
--
if they lack the equipment to stand and pee, they might as well go into the women's bathroom anyway, as it's cleaner, and they won't have to worry about sitting in piss, or dealing with the lovely aroma that comes from most public restrooms.
I've already covered why this is not a better scenario for a trans individuals. What leads you to believe that the trans community, or any community, would fight to make themselves more uncomfortable in the bathroom? Side note; women's bathrooms are no cleaner than men's. Everybody shits and everybody pisses.
-
as for women and their issues of people with penises using their bathrooms, that's usually seen unfavorably anyway.
Completely unfounded.
-
all in all the whole thing is silly. the bathrooms are designed for biological differences.
This isn't even slightly true.
-
The remainder of your argument is mostly rehash, so I won't bother repeating the above.
Culture is a very complex subject. I assume that by culture "mixing" you are referring to mixed culture kids, and not cultural appropriation. Of course there's nothing wrong being raised into an amalgamation of cultures, no matter how funny your memes try to be.
That's a pretty good one. My turn.
-
Once upon a time, there were three kingdoms, all bordering on the same lake. For centuries, these kingdoms had fought over an island in the middle of that lake. One day, they decided to have it out, once and for all.
The first kingdom was quite rich, and sent an army of 25 knights, each with three squires. The night before the battle, the knights jousted and cavorted as their squires polished armor, cooked food, and sharpened weapons. The second kingdom was not so wealthy, and sent only 10 knights, each with 2 squires. The night before the battle, the knights cavorted and sharpened their weapons as the squires polished armor and prepared dinner. The third kingdom was very poor, and only sent one elderly knight with his sole squire. The night before the battle, the knight sharpened his weapon, while the squire, using a looped rope, slung a pot high over the fire to cook while he prepared the knight's armor.
The next day, the battle began. All the knights of the first two kingdoms had cavorted a bit too much (one should never cavort while sharpening weapons and jousting) and could not fight. The squire of the third kingdom could not rouse the elderly knight in time for combat. So, in the absence of the knights, the squires fought.
The battle raged well into the late hours, but when the dust finally settled, a solitary figure limped from the carnage. The lone squire from the third kingdom dragged himself away, beaten, bloodied, but victorious.
And it just goes to prove, the squire of the high pot and noose is equal to the sum of the squires of the other two sides.
Wow I swear every time I come back, something even weirder is going on. Somebody has a new troll and/or legitimate christian spam account that is a literal amalgamation of the two biggest christian accounts, and one of which, Saintnow, you, is making a genuinely funny comment without any mention of sinners or liars or evil. Bob Dylan was right...
Beautiful. Reminds me of this lovely tune we used to listen to in church growing up.
She's not a fraud, she's just a kid who is being told that her talent is some god given gift. Hopefully she wises up and doesn't go on to attribute every constructive skill she gains to the grace of some creator and instead takes pride and credit in herself.
i'm merely using feminism for sake of argument. Perhaps it is a bad example considering the amount of separate schools of though in feminism. Even if this were the case, and they shared a rejection of patriarchy, their separate ideas are necessarily derived from that shared tenant. The same could not be said for atheism.
I'm beginning to think you lack an understanding of nuance, or at the very least don't care for it. Not all democrats are pro-choice, let alone supportive of late term abortions. The same can be said inversely for republicans. It's not as black and white as that, just like abortion and when life begins.
The difference between being an atheist and say, for example, being a feminist is that being an atheist only requires one denial of a claim, as where the other requires a set of shared opinions; therefore any two atheists could disagree on any number of other issues and yet remain uncontradicted as atheists. The same could not be said for feminism.
Life isn't very easily defined. In order to answer your question I necessarily have to define life based on my subjective experience and influences. This would require me to make an argument that cannot be defended or disputed regardless of the position I chose.
Harrassment is just some null word.
No it isn't. I don't need to tell you how to look words up on the internet.
I find the word bullying a lot more accurate.
Bullying and harassment aren't mutually exclusive. Typically they're hand in hand.
Let's focus on all the bullying that goes when you disagree with feminists.
You're free to do that, but it begs the question why you bothered to bring it up in a debate about whether or not to take feminism seriously. Being bullied over differing beliefs says nothing of the validity or credibility of those beliefs. That would warrant its own debate.
So you make this very debate about a debate Cuaroc made that was a duplicate of a debate you made in which you banned everyone whom disagreed with you as to enable those banned to facilitate actual debating, and then ban everyone who disagrees with you? I applaud your meta!
Being as feminism is now the laughing stock of the internet, yes. It's easy to dismiss something everyone tells you is a joke, and much harder to find out for yourself how you feel about it. It's the path of least resistance. Besides, we already know what kind of harassment awaits anyone who aligns even in part with feminism, that is a definite discouragement.
There is an obvious difference biologically, although I don't think that's what you're getting at. You seem to be asking what the ethical difference is between killing animals and killing plants. If you accept the subjectivity and relativity of ethics, nothing actually.
And what exactly is existence? If by existence you mean something bound by a physical reality, then the universe doesn't need a cause, because the processes by which existence began are naturalistic. Also, consider that spacetime expanded from the big bang, meaning, time as well as space began at the big bang. There is no "before" the beginning as we commonly understand it because time is a product of the universe, and not the other way around.
The nature of this debate is to express an opinion, not to determine which action is more significant or difficult, even yet you haven't told me how killing a child would be either of those, even though you insist it is. As far as the rest of your rebuttal, all I can determine is that you want to fuck me. You should know I'm a power top.
You;'re straight, good for you. This means, as far as your orientation is concerned, you are always going to be "normal." No one will ever treat you as second class, consider you immoral, or, even worse, actively try and change and/or kill you because of it. You're privileged.
Non;-heterosexuals actually do have to deal with these things. No one wants to have to convince anyone else that they don't deserve to be treated as inferior for things that no one can control, yet many are put in a position where they have to convince people of their normalcy, potentially at the risk of their own lives.
So you create a debate in which you disallow people to express their opinions with their word choice because it may offend your opinion, falsely establishing your opinion as the superior or authoritative opinion. Also, you're debate presents a false dichotomy, and it leads me to suspect you misunderstand atheism and conflate it with misotheism This is not a debate, this is just bate.
I think you're conflating biology and gender fluidity. People are fluid in all regards of their personality, gender and orientation are no exceptions. What factors influence those changes is what is debated.
There is biology involved in determining orientation, yes, but it is still poorly understood. All we know is that orientation isn't a choice and is subject to change.
Gender is more complex. Gender is largely determined by society and it's expectations. In the western world, we typically have two binary genders. Other cultures have as many as 5 or more, each with their own seemingly arbitrary set of rules (equally arbitrary to our western roles I might add). As where you might define yourself as male here, male as a gender may not exist somewhere else.
