CreateDebate


Annoyed_Kiwi's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Annoyed_Kiwi's arguments, looking across every debate.
0 points

Bah, and you call yourself a ruler...

When I have eradicated 99.5% of the world's population then I shall name me the supreme hereditary monarch of the world. And my new kingdom (which will be called the "The Kingdom of Rhubarb", because I said so) will have ownership over all. It's time to cycle back around to Feudalism with the rightful king. I will need a royal court of some description so applications are open for either Chef or Jester or bother if someone can do a Gordon Ramsey impression.

Making another account would take up time and effort I do not have. Besides who needs socks? NZ is basically just filled with hobbits anyway...

2 points

To think that any group has some sort of race-based privilege seems rather absurd. Every human is an individual human whose life is affected by a countless number of variables and I am yet to see any conclusive evidence that takes all these into account and still finds a noticeable correlation. I really do detest the sort of collectivist mindset that would have us all categorised based upon race. I mean I do not have any sort of meaningful connection to everyone who is White and nor do I think we act as a collective or have gotten where we each are in life individually because of some unknown "privilege" we share and I assume it is the same with other ethnicities.

Its not like we hold annual "White People Meetings" to discuss what our next collective goal is. (I mean, at the very least I'm not invited to them... you're not keeping me out of the loop are you Bront? :P)

In a situation that is very much picking the lesser of two evils, I'm going to have to go with Trump. He is an incompetent, egotistical prick who I very much detest but unlike Hillary Clinton, I do not fear him.

Hillary is probably a far more likeable and respectful person than Donald Trump, however, she is also very pro-military intervention; for a large part of the Democratic Primaries she talked about how she wanted a no-fly zone over Syria. In doing so she failed to mention how Russia would impact on this and how much collateral damage and civilian casualties would be involved. Now while many Politicians do make promises which they do not keep (I'm still yet to see any process made on that wall Mr President...) the mindset of simply solving issues with military strength (Which lets be honest a no-fly zone would most certainly be) is not something I am comfortable with in the slightest. Especially coming from someone who could have been the leader of the worlds largest military and a country that is infamous for entering conflicts it did not belong in.

Lastly, the best thing about Trump (In my opinion at least) is the fact he is so hated by the media and a large portion of the U.S. population. This means many have held his actions up to the utmost scrutiny which I appreciate. In the long run, I feel this means that we will be able to clearly see what mistakes Trumps made and when the next election comes around (assuming he makes it that far which I am relatively confident he will) we should be able to have newer candidates (And hopefully better than what was on offer in 2016) who will be able to fix many of his mistakes with relative ease as we will have identified them well in advance considering how much attention follows Trump. I am not confident at all we could have expected the same level of scrutiny under a Clinton lead Democratic government.

So TLDR: I think Trump's an idiot, but at least we know he's an idiot and I think that makes him better than Hillary as I'm pretty sure she is a closet war-mongerer.

In either case, Trump & Clinton were by far not the best candidates the Republicans and Democrats put forward so here's hoping that something better comes along in 2020.

When you use BEDMAS (Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) the answer is 9.

6÷2(1+2)= 6÷2 x (1+2)

6÷2 x (3)=

3 X(3)=

= 9

The point is not whether or not they'd be happy. Its whether Civil Rights are being violated. Obviously, if girls are not happy with the way Girl Scouts is being run then they should petition for change or even boycott the damn thing. One organisation shouldn't need to change because a different branch is failing.

2 points

Brontorptor and the other idiots on this site are not representative of the "right wing". Obviously, you would have to assume that some "right wingers" would be more than happy to remove the right to protest, just as some "left wingers" would also be willing to. Traditional conservatives in the US seem to hug the constitution like they do the Bible and I seriously doubt any libertarians or anarchists on the right would be wanting fewer rights. The left and right political spectrums are so large and all-encompassing that asking such broad questions such as "If right wingers COULD, would they take away your right to protest?" is always going to be near impossible to answer because of the sheer numbers of those on the "right".

Obviously, if you just meant Brontoraptor & FromWithin then I'd say yes in a heart beat...

As an individual, they are allowed to have their freedom of speech as given to them by the US Constitution. Although it is important to take into account that when they are on the field they are also representing their team and since they are employed by said team it is up to the employers to decide whether or not they are willing to continue to employ someone who acts in such a way because obviously not every NFL team wants to be dubbed "unpatriotic".

This means that while the NFL players have every right to kneel, their employers have every right to fire them because of it. And in my view, that is the way it should be. If you are not on the field, if you are not representing anything more than yourself and your views then, by all means, take a knee, flip the bird at the or even heil the damn thing. However, when you are representing a group, especially one that has employed you, you have to bear in mind that what you do has impacts on your employer and the company as a whole. To me, if you are not in a uniform do what anything that your right to free speech allows. But, when you are in a uniform you may suffer consequences for your actions.

So do I think NFL players should be allowed to take the knee? Yes. And if they do it in uniform and are representing a company I also think they should be able to be fired or at least punished for doing so. If it was my team and I employed the members on it I'd probably punishing them for giving the team bad PR but like I said, that's up to the employer.

No of course not, obviously I support the idea of an anarcho-syndaclist society. Mainly because it will be easier for me to establish my hereditary monarchy if everyone is prepared to share everything. In summary, we don't need a government, we just need ME to fulfil my destiny as the rightful ruler of this planet...

I mean even if for arguments sake, we agree that the U.S. has a problem with guns and the main cause of this is the guns themselves, banning an item outright is clearly not the answer. The issue with banning items after they have been mass produced and sold for a very long time is that people are not willing to part with them. It's likely you would end up with the same situation as the alcohol prohibition. Criminal organisations would see an oppurtunity and expand the black market to account for the ban. So instead of having guns be sold from a registered and government regulated business you would rather they are sold in a similar fashion to illegal drugs? Banning guns, regardless of the principle would be difficult and impractical to execute properly. Why not instead turn to look at the many other countires who also allow private citizens to own guns and see the differences they have? Or perhaps it's time to consider the idea that many of the problems in the U.S that are related to and lumped together with guns are affected by other things as well...

An armed Idealist or someone who wants to make a utopia via violent means. If to them the ends justify the means then they will do anything to get their way. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so many others are like this. And if they had succeeded then their "glorious utopia" would be nothing more than a pile of ash created from the fires of revolution, or war.

2 points

I would argue the exact opposite. In my mind collectivism has "Destroyed America". People have become so attached to pack mentality that it clouds reason. This is shown how political discussion has boiled over into violence time and time again. Regardless of whether you support Trump or not, if you are a Republican or a Democrat, you are still a human. But when you look at the UC Berkeley riots you see people attacking each other merely because they supported a different candidate. At this rate, America is heading towards Italy in the 1930s. And in regards to the "turned its people to morons" merely look at any political discussion. Arguments devolve into glorified name calling be it "racist" or "comie", "Nazi" & "Cuck". Actual discussion or sustenance is lost for the same arguments regurgitated without any real thought to it (This website is a great example). Now I am not going so far as saying collectivism is entirely bad or wrong. Rather that tribalism or "Us and Them" mentality has gone too far and butchered individuality and reasoning. There is nothing wrong with working as a collective, but that doesn't mean your collective is always right. To put it simply, everyone just wants to be part of the crowd, as long as its the right crowd.

Annoyed_Kiwi(35) Clarified
0 points

Is that even relevant? Capitalism is merely an economic system, how has it been able to stop people from thinking critically? or crush collectivism?

Annoyed_Kiwi(35) Clarified
1 point

However, disagreeing and silencing are two very different things. At least they allow the discussion to be open even if they pay no attention to opposing sides, as opposed to those who simply ban all those who hold a disagreeing opinion from the discussion entirely.

Well, at least the "Left" allows somewhat free and open discussion about these things without outright banning those who disagree...

Annoyed_Kiwi(35) Clarified
1 point

Admittedly I wasn't certain whether or not you were joking around or were being serious but I stand by what I said. I still cannot totally believe that Brontoraptor or DB are serious about what they spew out but regardless they should be eligible to run for office, I mean no one would vote for them so who really cares?

This is an American-based debate website on the internet this is clearly not the best representation of a religion that counts for 2.2 billion people on this earth (granted this was in 2012 but the statistics will not have changed dramatically). It is likely half of the "Christians" on this site are merely trolls wishing to stroke their ego, (And I am inclined to assume you are merely the same while you will probably feel likewise as is the nature of the internet.) as opposed to actually believing what they say in a similar fashion to the Land over Baptist church. In any case even basing your arguments on the "Bible thumpers" on this website shows a lack of reasoning. I doubt Brontoraptor would even have the mental capacity to find his way to the White House without a guide let alone sit in office. Whereas there are many people who consider themselves religious and are objectively intelligent and would be clearly capable of serving in office. And finally, lets not how incredibly undemocratic and meaningless it is to restrict the rights of holding office to someone who believes in XYZ. Morales aside someone can easily just claim to no longer be Christian to merely hold office.

Because America isn't run by a nearly oligarchal democracy (Russia), a corrupt "democracy" (China) or a theocracy that partially mimics a democracy (Saudi Arabia). One would assume the "leader of the free world" would be interested in the freedoms of the people of the world. National Security is always something that needs to be balanced, one cannot jeopardise one's own citizens but at the same time refugees are people too and deserve the same rights as any other human.

2 points

Aside from the fact that your statement is most likely an exaggerative generalisation. Does it matter? If they do and they are, then there's no problem. If they do and they aren't, well whoopty doo. There are always arrogant pricks, be them theist or atheist. If you can show that atheists as a collective movement tend to be exaggerative of their own intelligence then great! That's mildly interesting and we can all laugh at that. If not, then I don't really see your point.

You make it sound like young individuals always have opportunities to prevent emergencies and major catastrophes. So go on, enlighten me what should the teens and children of Manchester have done to stop the terror attack? Or what should any child do to prevent natural disaster if "waiting for one to dawn upon them." is such a bad thing?

2 points

I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't get married. Their marriage does not harm anyone else. I also don't have a problem if people dislike gay marriages, you can think they are the work of satan for all I care. If they want to make that choice then that's fine by me. As long as you don't force someone to marry them or force people into a same sex marriage then I don't care. How about I live my own life, and I'll leave you to live yours?

Yes, women CAN register for the draft, however, the point of the draft is to require people to serve. If you are a man and between 18-24 while the draft is in effect you HAVE to serve in the military, hence military conscription. However, if someone says they are a woman then they are not required to serve. And so what they are avoiding is military deployment, probably in a war zone if the draft is in effect. And even if we do it your way and say "it should be clearly visible that someone has a full commitment towards being LGBT." then how do we define that? Simply by clothes? So someone can pull a Corporal Klinger to get out of the army. Or do they need have already gone through the complete change? How would that affect those who are on the waiting list for the necessary opperations or can't even afford them?

I'm Assuming that by "you don't have to be a man anymore to be drafted, sexist" you mean that woman can also be drafted in the US but that is not the case. In June 2016 the Senate approved a military policy bill that would require women to join men in registering for the draft. However, that bill was later amended and all mention of Women being required to register was removed before the bill passed. This is a reasonable mistake but as a suggestion, maybe you should avoid laying out claims unless you are certain of them. Especially when you tie that in with an accusation of Sexism.

Also, what about people who identify as "gender fluid"? Meaning a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender. Would they be able to avoid something by switching their gender in your eyes or not?

Well clearly something has changed because this handsome basted is here now. Also frankly I dont think anyone truly despises a member of the opposite political party (with the exception of the devout crusader Bronoraptor). Everyone generally wants the same thing. The question is, what is the best way to get there. And naturally it varies from person to person. Besides people argue about much more inane topics than politics like the Kardashians and sich. So there is nothing wrong with some heated political debate.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]