The problem is that drinking and smoking being a bad thing has really only come with media's stigma. If you are told something is bad over and over often you want to know why and you want to experience why rather than listen to others. It is the same with people who have been smoking for years and see an ad about lung cancer, they will be a little on edge but eventually go back to smoking. Changing an age range/ taking a more active role in a child's life, to remain on topic in case of smoking and drinking, often that stigma is removed and they will come to their own conclusion. It also comes down to how parents raise their children. Personally I have no problem with the age limit being where it is in America, it does not affect me to be honest, though I do not foresee a complete societal meltdown from lowering it.
Satan was The Accuser, his purpose was to test a person's will and essentially review their life and their sins. (If I remember correctly) He was a "good guy" and he is a prime example of staring into the abyss until the abyss stares back. That is essentially what lead him to his fall. That is all according to books of faith that I do not subscribe to though I thought I'd put it into perspective.
Terribly sorry that I've not taken much time to review the debate we had though I cannot say I am personally inclined to do so. Mostly due to the fact that I am at the point where I am considering this my resignation from CD. As such I would like to say again that I am sorry I have not reviewed/ put the time I normally would into responding to you.
I'm not sure about schools in your area (I wouldn't use most in the sense of the majority of schools with uniforms in existence) but most private schools I know of also require i.d. Perhaps yours do not, I am going off my knowledge and you are going off of yours.
Typically students won't be flaunting any cleavage or sporting short enough skirts for you to see someone's knickers when standing next to them and not looking from below their skirt. In terms of cleavage that comes down to the teachers. The schools I know of typically monitor those things and correct them should they be seen.
Also simply because it is not absolute does not mean that it does not work. That has been proven through other mediums and applies here as well. You give too little credit to children in terms of maturity as well. Sure they could harass another child based on a missing button or a hole but that typically does not happen (still in terms of my knowledge/ schools in my area) either because of a lack of perception or simply not caring to such an extent.
I wouldn't say my fourth point is just plain stupid and ignorant, I would say that I don't agree with it but I wouldn't say that. People take pride in what they do, having a school uniform can potentially lead to students taking pride in that they are apart of a community (their school) and strive to better themselves for that reason. Or as I said previously it can potentially lead to a more orderly class room and a more disciplined and positive learning environment.
I don't find my fifth point cheap either, it can be beneficial to parents to purchase a uniform for their child instead of several upon several sets of clothing simply to be worn at school. That doesn't mean it always is.
You seem to think that I am speaking in absolutes, if I was then I apologize. (I've not reviewed my responses.) Things can or cannot work, simply because you do not break something does not mean crippling it means absolutely nothing.
Also please, please, please work on your sentence structure and grammar and spelling. I'm not saying this as an insult but I found your response a tad strange in places. Also work on being less condescending ( e.g. "Let me correct your points."), this is a debate not a stern talking to your adolescent child.
Cheers and thank you for my, potentially and probably, last debate on CD.
Survey Says: Most men do not find large breasts attractive. They may find qualities within a person who happens to have large breasts attractive but on average men prefer mid to smaller breast sizes.
Personally I can't stand the heat. Come wind, come snow, come winter land.
Schools that require uniforms often also require a form of ID to be carried with the student. As well the uniforms are often custom made and to obtain one you would have to go through the school and whomever they use to create and fit said uniforms. As well said schools are often smaller making staff to student interaction greater and thus student recognition often goes up.
Using the argument that you can magically bypass the school and use their uniform is like saying that you can put on casual clothes and go to a random public school. Sure it is easier and sure you can but you'll often be identified as a stranger as there are typically "hall monitors" stationed at the entrance and around the school. If such does not happen then there is the possibility that the school required ID card to actually entre the building. (Which a few more high security schools do.) Or in some cases the school may have security stationed outside the building that is to look after those coming and going.
As well if you did make it through which is possible what exactly would you do or accomplish? You couldn't go to a class as the schools often have a roster for which student is to attend whatever class. Should you show to a class and your name not be on the list then it is likely that the instructor would call down to find where you "should" be. Or if you seemed to be up to something of a malicious act then regardless of being a student or not you would likely be found and it would be taken care of.
It just isn't as simple as obtain, entre, profit. While it can be done you'd often not get very far with it. Though this is all according to my knowledge.
Typically school uniforms work better than non uniform dress codes in more than one way.
1. They keep inappropriate things out. Non uniform dress codes normally have leeway that allow Ms. Monica to flaunt some part of her body. Just because you don't see skin doesn't mean it isn't accentuated.
2. School uniforms often eliminate or lessen stress based upon social/ economic standing (at least within the school setting.) Unlike skin, if it isn't seen then there is something left to be imagined unless the student is confident in speaking of their social/ economic standing.
3. It is easier for authority figures to determine if a student is from a certain school or not, unless the person is willing to jump over quite a few hurdles it won't happen whereas it is fairly easy to gain entry into a school with non uniform dress codes.
4. Some would believe that uniforms improves academic performance. This is proposed as the use of uniforms typically increase discipline in the classroom which leads to a more orderly and enjoyable learning experience.
5. Uniforms are often more cost effective as the parents or the students, depending on circumstances, have to purchase less.
Uniforms aren't Stalanistic is any manner, they solve a lot of problems but that does not mean they are the only way to go. Uniforms can also create a few problems depending on where said uniforms are coming from. Take a religious school with uniforms geared toward one religion, some would say that their own religious dress code not being respected. In the end it is up to the parent/ student to choose whether they would like to have said student attend a school with uniforms or not.
The argument is old but I wanted to get a point across.
It is perfectly fine to allow students to bring phones to school with them provided that they not abuse that privilege by using said phones at inappropriate times. The problem that comes about is that quite a few students do not actually use the phones when permitted/ when acceptable and instead choose to use them during classwork/ lectures and so on.
"A poor person refers to a person who has the three basic necessities of life: Food, shelter and clothing, just that he has much less of it than a rich person."
That does not account for what the term "poor" when referring to a person's economical status actually defines. That is typically referred to as lower middle class. You cannot pick and choose what definition you wish to use when stating, "as a poor person." You cannot mix and match.
I wasn't trying to imply that a state of carelessness was required but reviewing it I suppose it could be taken that way.
Society says that we have said inalienable rights and I am implying the lack of said society. "We do because we say we do" implies the presence of a civilized society stating that all humans have said rights. Also, why is it in the interest of the species? If you lived without basic human rights and things went well for whatever reason I'd reckon that you would feel otherwise. By saying that it is in the interest of the species you are instilling the beliefs that you have grown up with into what you believe to be fact. It is like saying that western society ideals are best for the Middle East, the person stating this has grown up with that belief being instilled in them.
I fail to see how that disputes my post. Of anything that just supports it.
Is it? What about all the adds thrown about websites? Some would say that they are just there to support the site's revenue, others would claim that they are a subtle way to change people's interests. What about those kids who have always dressed and acted how they wanted until they joined the "cool crowd" that wear what is shown on the internet and T.V.?
Are you rich? Have you been in his place and do you understand what comes with it? Do you feel you are judging him based off of your own life and what you believe it would be like if you were in his position?
Just something to chew on.
Why do you believe this? Why is it ignorant to say that people suffer even though they are rich?
The rich suffer in a different way than the poor this much is true but they still suffer. Look at self-made people, who are you to say that they have not or do not suffer? What do you know of their life? What if their success was only through a great deal of hardship that left them emotionally bare or perhaps physically scarred. What if they lost their dearest friends to get to where they are? What if to reach the top of the mountain they now stand upon they had to win the most Pyrrhic victory of their life?
When one has everything they could ever wish for, what is there to want in life?
Debates: "Autism, problem or excuse?"
"Why Does The United Kingdoms Suck?"
"Men Should be Allowed to Rape Lesbians."
Just what I found to have some ridiculous arguments in them/ found them ridiculous.
Nicely put. Reminds me of the last bit in, "The Bard's Song" by Blind Guardian.
"In my thoughts and in my dreams
They're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men
And elves
Come close Your eyes
You can see them, too"
Well it is quite possible that they do or at one point did, who's to say? There is no proof for or against such creatures having existed at one point in time. It is entirely up to speculation, however, some believe that the belief in mythical creatures originated in the fear of leaving one's town or village in the earlier human settlements in time. (Pre-Roman - Medieval.) Not knowing what is out there is a great fear and allows for the belief in a concept that one would normally reject should they have a greater knowledge and understanding of the world around them. Fear is a powerful tool for more than the purpose of striking it into the hearts of those you wish it to fall upon. Though I digress, while I personally do not believe mythical creatures exist I still don't deny the chance that they may or may have existed.
"God's word" has nothing to do with the argument. The eternity you believe in which resides in a supposed Heaven is not the type of eternity the debate is about.
Immortality means that one cannot die from any cause. Your eternity signifies having died to attain an everlasting state, that is not immortality.
Mortality is the existence you live in, it will end. Immortality is an existence without end while remaining alive. That is not the concept you bring to the table with "God's word." Thus your argument is off topic and not thoroughly though out.
Please not that I am not trying to be overtly rude while I may come across as such. I simply would like you to be able to participate in this debate while remaining on topic so you and others (myself obviously included) may benefit from each others insights.
Is the United States of America awesome? Taking into account recent happenings, no. Simple as that.
Personally I do not believe there is a "master form" of art. Art to me is merely expression in itself. By speaking words one might spawn a thousand paintings and to accompany those paintings one might create melodies which in turn become pages full of music. That music could then lead into a plethora of stories which create a separate world that would have not existed without the first words spoken.
While I do believe there is preference I do not believe there is one form of art that is held above all.
I prefer more than one type of art as many do though I suppose my favourite form would literature. Whether that consists of my own writing or my reading of other works.
Yes that was a tad long winded but hey why not.
I mentioned it in another post. The USA did go into a few countries without the Government's knowledge/ approval. The example I used (because it pertained to that post) was Pakistan. The United States' military and Government did not have the approval of the Pakistani Government or the people.
Invasion implies exactly that. The "War of Terror" is a war of revenge and want. You cannot wage a war against a feeling that is imbedded into the human psyche. By removing one people's terror you create terror for another body of people.
The problems I have with your argument, in the most respectful way possible, is that the attack didn't shake the whole world. Many countries at the time
hardly knew of it.
They did have an alternative, peaceful negotiations.
Many of the places that have been attacked at civilian areas. Not military bases. Sure many organizations housed up in said civilian hot spots but does that warrant bombings?
The USA caught Osama Bin Laden without the authority to enter into Pakistan and hunt him down. They did not go to the Government prior to enacting their plan to capture (or as it turned out, assassinate) Osama Bin Laden. This arose a lot of annoyance from the Pakistani Government/ their people and surrounding areas.
