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?
