Yes, it is such a tired old story. Genocide: Waa waa waa. (Sarcasm, just in case that's not ridiculously obvious)
Tell me how, when, and where the holocaust has been exaggerated.
Hey, by the way, when you make a statement like, "The Jews are..." it's a generalization. I'm sure that some Jews see themselves as better than others because of being "the chosen people" but I have never met one with that type of attitude. Keep in mind, too, that not all Jews are fundamentalists, and that even those who are do not necessarily see the "chosen people" concept the same way you're implying.
Yes, it is such a tired old story. Genocide: Waa waa waa.
Tell me how, when, and where the holocaust has been exaggerated.
Hey, by the way, when you make a statement like, "The Jews are..." it's a generalization. I'm sure that some Jews see themselves as better than others because of being "the chosen people" but I have never met one with that type of attitude. Keep in mind, too, that not all Jews are fundamentalists, and that even those who are do not necessarily see the "chosen people" concept the same way you're inferring.
I may be making a mistake here, but I'm confused. If you aren't concerned that the muslims in America are radical extremists, why are you worried that they're going to "take over"? What is the harm in peaceful, constitution-accepting muslims becoming a bigger group in the US?
I have friends who I consider pretty great who are atheists, so I'm with you here. And I'd be kind of ticked if they all had to move. I only know like ONE guy who is an atheist who I'd be okay with moving to Australia or somewhere, but that's because he's a jerk, not because he's an atheist. x]
...Well, I doubt that you actually support this, Joe, because it's obviously a horrible idea, so I'll argue the other points in the description. First of all, there have been plenty of wars waged by religious people. I seem to recall a hundred year long war taking place among pretty religious people. And what about the crusades? PEOPLE, not ATHEISTS, are capable of atrocities. Atheism is not the problem. Tell me how many atheists have made wars, and I'm pretty sure I can show you at least an equal number of religious people who have done the same thing. Also, how are "atheists" using up resources making war weaponry? The US makes weapons, and it is a country probably made up of more Christians than anyone else(I haven't looked at any statistics lately, but it's clear that we are not anything close to a nation solely of atheists).
Of course, this is Joe I'm talking to, so it's definitely a possibility that you're being sarcastic/mocking someone elses arguments about religious people/trying to piss people off. x]
Is there some similar debate that I haven't seen regarding religious people? 'Cause this kind of sounds like a response to attacks on religious people, but I could be wrong.
I know that there are terrorists in the Middle East, but I also know that not everyone from the Middle East is a terrorist. I'm saying that every human being deserves the right to a fair trial. Why is it okay to torture and detain a man from the Middle East without a trial? He's a human being with the same rights as an American. Not the same legal rights, but the same natural rights.
It sounds like you're saying that because some people in the Middle East torture Americans, Americans should be allowed to torture ANYONE in the Middle East, even someone not proven to have had any part of torturing us. I'm talking about terrorism SUSPECTS, not CONVICTS. As I said before, I'm not sure I'm okay with torturing anyone at all, but I know that it's not okay to torture those who may be innocent.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/
This man was tortured and isolated without a trial or even a charge. That's not okay.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense, does it? haha. At first I was going to say that the Bible never actually says Jesus had long hair, but I heard just now that some historical documents may say that. If that's the case, then that does seem to be a contradiction. But you should probably verify that Jesus actually did have long hair, because I don't have a historical source, and the Bible never actually says his hair was long.
As far as I understand, this verse has to do with the culture of the New Testament times. And I think I've read "nature" translated as "your natures", which I suppose would mean that the culture of that time would support this whole hair rule.
See, from what I can gather(Although I have read this passage a while back, I looked it up on Biblegateway so I could know what I was talking about), this passage is establishing a role of woman as being somewhat under man, which of course I cannot agree with. It doesn't make woman a totally useless entity, since it goes on to say that neither sex is independent of the other, and that man comes from woman now, just as woman came from man(in the creation story). But it does still seem like this and other passages in the Bible say that woman is to be submitted to man, although not to the extent that many people have taken it. I'm not saying I agree with the amount of misogyny in there of course, just that the NT does seem to acknowledge that women are people, even if they are considered people who are to be under the authority of men. Bottom line: This passage, as far as I can tell, is one of several that shows misogyny in the Bible, but it should be acknowledged that the NT is not AS misogynistic as it has been taken to be. Sorry, that was kind of a little feminist tangent. ;]
Let me ask a question: Should torturing American suspects of crimes be legal? Although I'm not sure I would support torturing anyone, it is atrocious to torture someone who may not have even done anything wrong. If someone did this to Americans, we'd all be going through the roof. Why is it different because it's people in the Middle East?
Haha. I'm glad you clarified. I was about to be like, "Futurama. This debate is over." I agree with the others though; a lot of cartoons not only happen to entertain adults, but are intended to do so. Watch a Disney movie, and you'll find some jokes thrown in there solely for adults(and no, I don't mean dirty jokes, although that does happen too...).
But I didn't see a new list at all, that's why I'm confused.
Edit: Oh! I found it, nevermind. Haha. Sorry.
Second edit: I don't know if "these words" refers to what God just said or what he was about to say, which it doesn't disclose; it just says Moses was up there for forty days and nights with God. I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything, and I don't know that you're wrong; I just don't know enough about the bible/the original words to know what this passage really means.
Third edit: Oh my gosh. I'm really stupid. NOW I found it; I was looking at the wrong part. >_____> Just ignore me. :P
While I do kind of think cigarettes should be banned, for the reason of secondhand smoke, I do not believe that it is necessary to ban other tobacco products. People have the right to put whatever they want to into their own bodies, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Why should the government take away this freedom to adults just because it is unhealthy?
I realized a while back that the last bit saying "tear me apart" may have come off like, "I KNOW YOU PRO-CHOICE PPL R EVIL && VICIOUS!" I did not mean it that way at all. I am just really afraid of being criticized by people whose opinion I value to some extent, and there are several people on this site who fall into that category and are pro-choice. So, I was just trying to lighten things a bit. Hope it didn't come off wrong.
I do not see it as acceptable except in extreme health cases. The reason for this is that a fetus is a human life form, and abortion is either murder or stopping a human life from becoming fully developed into a person. I'm not saying it's not a difficult issue, or that other viewpoints are invalid, of course. It's just the way I see it, and it makes sense to me logically. Is even the case of rape a reason to kill a human life? Perhaps, if it is before the fetus gains a consciousness. But if you are killing a conscious human being, I can't see even the case of rape justifying that.
Now, I do not know at what point during pregnancy, or after, a child/fetus has consciousness. If anyone knows this(and can back it up with a reliable source), by all means, tell me. I'm not saying that the knowledge(even if it says the fetus does not have consciousness) would definitely change my viewpoint, but it could.
At any rate, I don't think that abortion without good reason would be okay, because whether or not a fetus is a person, it is a developing human life.
So...go on. Tear me apart. But be nice, 'cause tomorrow's my birthday. x)
....I'm having a geek attack, because there is a Doctor Who episode in which a little girl saves all these dying people into her brain, which was a computer, I think...it's been a while since I've seen it. Anways. I'll be a serious debater now. :P
Interesting debate. I think that combining the definitions given create a good working definition of a human being: a human being is a conscious life form with human DNA. Now...I'm uncertain about this definition, so if anyone wants to argue it out, that would be great.
Now, as for computers and vegetative states: A human's mind inside of a computer cannot be a human being, as MK said, but if it could somehow have consciousness/sentience, I would say it is a person. Thanks to my Physicist brother(and his offense at my excluding aliens from the definition of "person"), I don't believe that a person has to be a human. Now, someone may bust out a dictionary and prove me wrong...but hopefully my point can be seen.
Vegetative states: If someone truly has no consciousness, no dreams, nothing, and they can never come out of it, then they are, as doctor's say, brain dead. Now, deciding whether or not the dead or the essentially dead are still human beings gets into some murky water that I don't think I'll wade in just yet(YaY for silly-sounding metaphors).
I should also mention that I was speaking hypothetically; it is very difficult to actually determine that a person is actually brain dead, in fact, I don't believe that we are technologically advanced(if i enough to determine it(due to people coming out of those states after having been declared brain dead). That's a bit of a side note, but I thought I'd mention it.
Sorry I got off topic....but excellent debate. It made me really have to think, which is awesome. :)
While I wouldn't say that they are the meaning of life, films can be meaningful. Film is, in my opinion, an art form. Yes, it is corrupted by those who care more about what sells than what is beautiful or meaningful, but there are films that are worth watching; that make us feel and think. If something helps you to feel someone else's experience(or type of experience..most films are fictional, of course), or to think and understand, I believe it is worthwhile.
Why should one keep ones insanity to oneself? I typically find my insanity shrink slightly when I get it out of my own brain.
I also have to ask: why is someone who disagrees radically with you, even to the extent that you can't imagine why they would think that, necessarily insane? Granted, there are certain beliefs which can be destructive, and also granted that the belief in God has led to a lot of destruction, it is not inherently harmful or damaging. Not as long as it is accompanied by some other basic beliefs(such as "you probably shouldn't kill that guy because he's catholic/protestant/muslim/atheist/
Hahaha. Yah i no rite? nd u mispeled hert.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Yeah, I guess that wasn't a great point about "attempting to think logically and putting themselves out there", since it is true that most of us on here are more about looking at both sides than apologists are. But I still have to give them props for trying to come up with reasons rather than just saying, "It's true because it's in the Bible--question it and go to hell".
And as for the "Aw come on!"...If you're really interested, I will consider it. ;P
I'll go ahead and weigh in. I think that we should not trust our government, but should not fear them either. I realized that the problem with this debate is that I was asking the wrong question. Wacky conspiracy theories are not believed because of a lack of trust in the government; they are believed because of irrational fear of the government. No one should fear their government to such an extent that that person stops thinking clearly. I'm not saying that all conspiracy theories are irrational; I'm just saying that if a person is going to separate the rational from the irrational, that person cannot have too much fear in his/her mind, because fear makes it really difficult to think clearly.
The officials we elect should not be "trusted" unless we have seen what they do and what their motives seem to be. Even then, people should be reluctant to trust them because anyone can make themselves look good, and anyone can do good things with selfish motives.
Also, one cannot really reasonably place trust in "the government", because our government is made up of so many individuals, and it is changing on a regular basis.
I think I came in here around the end of the Bush administration, so I think I know what you're talking about. I was thrilled with this site when I first joined; I remember great, intelligent debates. I remember finally understanding the other side of at least one issue(abortion, in my case). I remember when people spelled things properly, when they did not scream cuss words at each other, and when every other post wasn't sexist. Nowadays, this site does not require me to think very hard. I'm not saying it never does...but the quality of the debates has gone down a lot.
Actually, I really agree here. You know why? Because I'm something of one. Not out loud, just in my head. I don't know what I believe, but apologist things pop into my head all the time, and they often seem logical to me, but I am too embarrassed to discuss them much. Even when I do, people aren't usually willing to follow me into the rabbit hole of reasoning.
Now for a logical reason for my position, rather than personal venting: They are putting themselves out there, and they are attempting to think logically. Isn't that what all of us on here believe in? Granted, they aren't looking at both sides, and are rather trying to rationalize something that the Bible says should be apparent...but I don't think this disqualifies them for deserving respect, because we all have blind spots. Big ones.
On the plus side, thinking about all that, and somewhat openly talking about it, kind of opened up my mind to debunk one of my apologies. Haha. So...thanks Atypican. Got me thinking some more.
I do think this is a satire. Needless to say, if they are being serious, I certainly disagree with the idea. Obviously, there is a legitimate public need that needs to be met through a fire dept., and no one should have to pay to have their life saved. Which, frankly, is a good argument for nationalized healthcare, incidentally...but there are more factors than that, and I get that. Honestly, I don't know my opinion on it. I'm all for giving free healthcare, as long as there is a way to avoid the disadvantages of the public option. If they can find a way to do that, I'm all for it. I just want to make sure it won't do more harm than good.
Firstly, I am glad Pineapple noticed the fact that you didn't even acknowledge women in office. I probably wouldn't have noticed, I'm a little embarrassed to say, but props to Pineapple for catching it.
Also, for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use genderless pronouns. I'm not trying to be annoyingly PC, I just think the English language really needs these, if only for simplicity's sake.
Secondly, to answer the question, I would take it into account, but I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone based solely on that. It does reflect someone's character, but only a part of it. And it could mean various things about the person: 1. The person is dishonest and sleazy in general. 2. Ze lets hir emotions(or body) overwhelm hir sometimes in their personal lives. 3.Ze made a personal mistake that is not typical for hir.
Now, if the person is dishonest and sleazy in general, that is ideally not a person you'd want to give power to, but realistically, if they are going to put the right policies through, and if there are enough checks on power, it might be okay. And if ze simply has a few personal weaknesses, all you need to know is whether or not, or to what extent, those will effect hir leadership.
But even in intelligent beings, is there any true free will? The decisions you make are based on your nature and your experiences, right? You make the decisions, but being yourself and having the experiences you do, could you make any others? Or is there true free will, in which two people who are precisely the same and have the same experiences, could make two separate choices?
I freakin' love this discussion. This is exactly the kind of thing I ask myself.
Mario is a chubby Italian plumber with an awesome mustache who can jump ridiculously high, can fly, turn invisible, or turn metal when wearing the right caps, travels through pipes, and eats magical mushrooms, all while saving a magical toadstool princess.
The End. I think the facts speak for themselves.
Actually, that is probably true. Many women are far too easily subjugated. One girl I knew in junior high said that she felt that running for president, "wasn't our place". So yes, I agree that many women go(or have gone) right along with being oppressed. More later. I have to get off the computer right now.
While I agree with your ideas, I think the creator of the debate was asking why, traditionally and historically, so many cultures have been male-dominated. I mean, I could be wrong; I don't even know the guy, so for all I know he's a raging sexist, but I didn't take it that way.
Not always true. A man may fall in love with someone who loves him, but not as much as he loves her, and maybe she loves someone else she can't have. Sometimes people have no idea what they feel. People also have personal issues that get in the way of their attraction and affection for one another. Although you're right about casual dating and such not being all that complex, there are many screwy dames and crazy fellas out there, and most of us are, at some point, among them. ;)
So it should be a prerequisite to immigrating, is that what you're saying? Like, immigrants would have to take a test or something? I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're arguing for. I have to ask though: Why does this issue seem to make you so mad?
I don't really know what you're advocating; do you want there to simply not be any signs and accommodations for those who speak other languages? Because I don't really think that's right. Sure, we should encourage those who come to this country to learn English, since it is the most common language, but why not help them get around if they don't know it yet/can't for whatever reason?
Of course, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you want.
Understandable? Of course. OK? No. If no one stands up to a tyrant, then all of those people have surrendered their freedom. Of course, people should be smart about standing up, and secret dissension could be what starts off revolutions, but people shouldn't just bow to a tyrant, without any attempt at breaking free.
::hugs back::
You know, I've actually ranted to a friend of mine about how church camp hellfire sermons are emotional abuse. I mean, they honestly are. If someone told a child that they would set them on fire one day if they didn't believe the right doctrine or didn't do the right things, it would be considered horribly wrong. Yet if you throw religion into the mix, it's somehow okay to traumatize someone. Although actually I do understand it: The adults believe it is a real threat, and who knows? I certainly don't. So they are trying to prevent that from happening to their kid, and I understand that, but it's emotional abuse nonetheless. It's like those crazy people who kill their children because they think they are saving them somehow. Less extreme, yes, but the same basic logic.
I'm horribly afraid of being disliked. That's actually my worst fear, as silly as it sounds. I also used to suffer from hadeophobia: Fear of hell, Pediophobia: Fear of dolls, Peccatophobia: Fear of sinning, Monophobia: Fear of solitude, Atephobia: Fear of ruin(I suppose I still sort of have that). I have ocd, and it used to center around religious things when I was younger(in case you're wondering about the fear of hell and sinning).
Nowadays, I have paraphobia: Fear of sexual perversion, as well as a more general fear of being a terrible person. Yepyep. Ocd is fun, she said sarcastically. Of course, the fears of being a horrible person may really be fears of being disliked, since people don't generally like horrible people...I don't know. I'm still trying to decide whether or not those are two separate fears.
I also have chronophobia: Fear of time, and Enissophobia: Fear of being criticised. And whatever "fear of executions" is, I have that. x] I've always found executions deeply disturbing. I also have mild arachnaphobia and Ophidiophobia(fear of snakes).
So...there's all my psychoses in one little spot. o_o
Assassination is better than war, because in war there are innocent victims. In an assassination, there is at least less chance of harming innocent people. If a government has a VERY good reason for assassinating a figure, and if there is no reasonable alternative, then yes, it is legitimate. I would definitely support more peaceful alternatives, but if there are none, then it can be legitimate.
I agree! While it could be argued that COMPLETE pacifism is emotion-driven and illogical(not sure I would agree, but you could argue it effectively), the ideas of non-violence as a solution can be very logical. Another reason for less violence is that violence usually causes retaliation, and often a cycle. And the more advanced weapons get, the more collateral damage will exist, and the greater chance exists of inadvertently causing ones OWN destruction through a cycle of violence(nuclear weapons are a perfect example; countries with nuclear weapons really have to try to get along now, since a war would do more harm to BOTH countries than either would be willing to allow).
Besides, the ideals of compassion are logical; most people would like to live in a world in which they get the help and love they need. If a person wants this, he/she should try to further these ideas.
It can mean different things. Sometimes, like Dacey said, it can be an excuse. However, Pineapple is right too. Some people like really muscular guys, others like thin guys. Some people like nerdy looking guys, some "emo" guys, etc. Basically, what it means depends on who says it. Some girls will truly mean that they simply don't see you that way, but aren't repulsed by you. Others actually do mean that they think you are disgusting. It depends on the woman, but it does typically mean one of these two things.
But something is either harmful or not, no matter what the people of the time think about it. Is slavery wrong? Yes. Was it wrong when it occured and was accepted by society? Yes. It was still harmful, and still took away people's freedom. Isn't wrong still wrong, regardless of society, and what it thinks?
This makes no sense to me. While you could argue there is no real "right" or "wrong" (although I would disagree), an action either should have been taken or shouldn't have been taken. Was it harmful to other people? Yes. Then, in my opinion, it was wrong, regardless of whether or not the people of that time realized it.
Could you explain what you mean?
1984 reference? I'm reading that right now! It's great so far!
Here's the thing though: I see all these people saying things like "OMGOBAMAWASBORNINIRAQ" and I see that that is irrational. However, I know that the government certainly hides things(e.g. CIA missions that are not disclosed until years later)... So I'm asking: What is the balance?
Well...Christmas originated as a pagan celebration. It was made into a Christian celebration by early Christians, then made into a holiday that includes the non-religious by Americans. My point is, the holiday has different meaning for different individuals. if the holiday has meaning to you, then it is not hypocritical for you to celebrate it. If the holiday does not hold any meaning for you, and you have no good reason to celebrate it, then don't. It's absolutely a personal decision, as andsoccer said.
Small things CAN cause larger things to happen, but only with help from other small things. So if a person is pointing out a trend or a bunch of little things, then yes, it could be valid. But if someone says that one TINY thing will almost certainly lead to HORRIBLE DISASTER, then no, that's not valid.
Acceptable argument: Many different events and decisions led to world war one.
Non-acceptable argument: It was ALL, absolutely ALL, the fault of that one person who said that one thing that set off the guy who shot Archduke Ferdinand.
This makes me think of "Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead."
Joe, I think you will appreciate this monologue from that play:
Rosencrantz: Do you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with the lid on it? Nor do I really. Silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box. One keeps forgetting to take into account that one is dead. Which should make all the difference. Shouldn't it? I mean, you’d never know you were in a box would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I’d like to sleep in a box, mind you. Not without any air. You'd wake up dead for a start and then where would you be? In a box. That's the bit I don't like, frankly. That’s why I don’t think of it. Because you'd be helpless wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that. I mean, you'd be in there forever. Even taking into account the fact that you're dead. It isn't a pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really. Ask yourself: if I asked you straight off I'm going to stuff you in this box now – would you rather to be alive or dead?
Naturally you’d prefer to be alive. Life in a box is better than no life at all. I expect. You'd have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking, well, at least I’m not dead. In a minute, somebody’s going to bang on the lid and tell me to come out. (knocks) "Hey you! What's your name? Come out of there!"
But gay people are not asexual...how is this a good solution for them?
And I've never seen you as a happy person; In fact, I recall upon first hearing your outlook on life seriously wanting to hug you. o_o Of course, in looking at it again, you may be perfectly happy, I don't really know. I'm just saying that you don't especially exude happy...
I'm not sure if the "yes" and "no" sides are responding to the question in the title or the description...but I'm responding to the title. If a criminal has already been punished by being put in jail, further unnecessary and unwanted publicity would be cruel. It is wrong to do harm even to a criminal beyond what is necessary to prevent crime. Then it is not justice; it's revenge and rationalization of cruelty.
Although I'm sure there are worse, one I think is awful is Hayden Christiansen(sp?). He says things like, "This is an outrage. The council doesn't trust me." with a monotone voice. Are you upset? Really? Not getting that...unless of course you clench your teeth. That is completely acceptable all on its own to show rage. >_> I feel like he gets cast because he's good-looking, and to me he's not even amazing-looking.
You can make a better case than that. My dog could make a better case than that...I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying it would be a lot better if you said why you think that, rather than just state it. I know that you can say why, and make a better argument than this, so I think you should.
It depends a LOT on the situation, like kamranw said. If the child is about 14 or so, and trying to date a 20 year old gang member, then yes, of course the parents should interfere.
If a 16-17 year old is dating someone who the parent doesn't think is good for them, but is not obviously dangerous, then they should either not interfere or interfere minimally(e.g. curfews and amount of time spent with that person), but not "forbid" them to see each other. Name one time when that worked. Really.
As far as people who are solidly adults in the same situation, the parent should probably leave them alone. There are young 18 year olds that may still basically be kids, but once you get to people who are adults, the parents don't have any business interfering (unless the child is in serious danger).
They might. Do you really think that there aren't ANY people who wouldn't kill their friend for food, but would still want to survive? I mean, some people do have a shred of loyalty. But I know you're just kidding around, I'm just saying...
