Yes!
I think it was Einstein who said, "just because everyone is doing it, it doesn't make it right"
Yes- I see immaturity so often on here. It's in the form of arguments but also exists as created debates. Has anyone here seen "Pokémon vs. Bakugan"? I suppose everyone has their interests, however.
I admit that I have felt tempted on a number of occasions to spout pointless ad hominem or general abuse. That's not an assertive way of doing things so I try not to.
Personally, I think it depends on the context. Of course, people of every colour should have equal rights, etc- but your question is "Does the colour of a person really matter?"
It does matter, but not for the purpose of racism or other forms of discrimination.
It wasn't long ago that I was reading through a booklet which outlined the courses run at one of the universities near me. It had courses which said for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people only. Does this tell you something? I think it does. There are all these things the government implements to try to make up for what happened to the stolen generation and the western culture's history of racism. It's morally justifiable, I suppose; but some people might say it's unfair- even following these circumstances- that Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders receive these benefits. I've heard some European people speak passionately about how they take up resources but give nothing back. That's not necessarily my opinion.
I may have strayed off topic there. But in the end it does matter.
I suppose it's possible, but is there any scientific proof to support this?
A point for the use of the world "codswallop". Very unusual.
:-P :-D
I guess I could have put it in General or maybe World?
I put it into science because I thought the alignment of planets, etc, related to it.
Allies are people you consider to have the same opinions as you and support your arguments/disputes. They are more aware of your new debates and contribute more frequently than others to them.
Enemies are the people you commonly conflict with in a large number of situations.
Hostiles are people who have classed you as their enemy, and you may not have listed them as yours yet.
I don't think any of them should take away/ award up-votes or down-votes because it may be only you who disagrees/ agrees with them. It makes the system unfair, because if a person isn't liked by the majority of CreateDebate, they are going to end up with negative numbers, etc. It's bitter.
Pity is usually what a grieving/ sad person doesn't want. What they do require is support, and they can't get that from strangers.
Books for me. Generally more informative, reliable, and better for the health.
However, I highly recommend you look up this debate on the CreateDebate website. I'm sure you'll find many others.
It probably means drastic, extreme, major, absolute, etc etc etc
There's an example right here.
I don't think the name-calling, etc, is necessary, but I myself understand that a person can get frustrated by their opponent/s. Often when they strike a nerve it is hard not to strike back.
On another note, I always thought that, when you had to type something down, people would put forward more mature and well-thought-out arguments.
No coffee for me. I don't like it.
Aren't the UK and Britain the same thing, though? I may be wrong.
Sorry. I probably should have researched this matter further before contributing to this.
Pirateelfdog was giving real arguments, but LibProlifer was offended even though that was not what he intended.
Was meinst do? Haben Sie in Bezug auf die Berufs das? Es ist ein bisschen vage.
This is right. It's not the quote itself, but it is when combined with the rest of the sentence.
On this website: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
- It says that a strawman is misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. This, however, serves to undermine honest rational debate.
I can't help but notice the recent arguments usually involving LibProlifer, Cuaroc and Pirateelfdog.
Sensitive or unprofessional? Both?
Yup, here at create debate we have a large range of personality and skill sets.
Quitting does not actually resolve a smoking related illness. Quitting reduces risk of further injury, it has nothing to do with actual treatment. This is completely different since we are talking about treatment of a known illness, not a risk of future illness.
I'm not sure whether I have implied something that caused this response. Maybe I interpreted it wrong- as I often do- but from that I gathered that you assumed that an illness was already present in the smokers. Which isn't always the case. I didn't claim that quitting resolved a smoking resolves a smoking-related illness, but I can see how this might fit in with the insurance provided for the costs of homecare (which would prevent future illness of child/parent). In that case, alright.
There is nothing to suggest that there is a quick fix for Munchausen where the child can be temporarily remanded to a neighbour/relative/friend. This is about the best interest for the child, not the parent.
Of course there is no quick fix. Morality dictates that we try all possible variables until we are forced to use our last resort. That last resort would be to remove the MBP (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) parent's rights to their child and/ or put them in a situation where their child is no longer around for them to harm (as you mentioned).
We have to realise that the therapy we agree on implementing doesn't specifically target the MBP. More often than not, by unveiling and working on the cause of it (such as rape or near-death), Munchausen by Proxy can be eliminated. I agree it isn't a quick fix, but by taking a course of action sooner we can eliminate the propblem sooner.
It is important to consider the best interests of the parent as well. How will they be affected by the change? Despite their prognosis, their emotions and existential outcome still matters. The parent is human, and they do not want to be separated from their child; not only because they are the main instrument of the MBP parent's illness. A parent always loves his/ her children, and by taking them away it puts more stress on them.
When did I imply that it is not psychological?
Again, I must have been so stupid (:/) as to misunderstand the statement. You worded it in a way that was difficult to interpret. As you so conveniently repeated below:
*This is a far more complicated issue than alcoholism as it is mostly psychological."
By saying that, you've implied that either alcoholism/MBP is different to alcoholism/ MBP as it is mostly psychological. So you've basically said one is more psychological than the other. False. But you must have meant it the other way around to what I read it as. Again. Sorry :-P
LinkedIn does not train you. There is no direct improvement of knowledge from joining a social network. They just provide access to resources that would otherwise be unavailable.
What I meant was that LinkedIn can widen your circle so you can share experiences, knowledge etc. and tell me: what resources? I am dying to know.
Career opportunities do not always offer new experiences or improve some skill set. They generally offer ways to advance your career.
Let me ask you then, what does, by your standards, "advancing" one's career entail? We must clearly have differing definitions of what "advancing a career" actually means. To me, it means gaining experience, knowledge, or insight into your profession. A successful career is one that a person is good at and enjoys. Maybe it is you who has a different opinion on what it means but many other people would agree with me on this.
I am not sure why you think I implied that religious people are all vets, doctors, scientists or that there are scientific studies showing this. I did not make these statements explicitly and I still can't find these implications in any of my previous statements.
That's because they aren't there. I was simply trying to provide some evidence, but obviously this confused you, so I'll stop.
I can see where you are coming from.
Euthanasia doesn't imply that the lower your QoL, the less valuable it is.
I agree that some people aren't used to critism and get somewhat of a shock when they join forums like this one. Do you have any experiences to speak of?
If there are better and cheaper options, why would insurance ever cover the more expensive, less practical option?
This is like asking why insurance would cater insurance depending on if a person smokes or not. You're asking in this way: "why should insurance cover this person when they can just quit?" As far as I know, insurance caters to the choices of the customer and doesn't deny them insurance because of them.
Munchausen only has experimental drugs that suppress urges. They don't even work most of the time.
Looking back on your contribution which talks about parental custody and petitioning for it back- you claim that the drugs don't even work, which would mean under this circumstance that the relevant parent would not be able to petition. You may as well have not mentioned the petition.
This is not a simple issue. It requires a lifetime of management.
So a lifetime away from family is away to manage that, huh. Nope. Being with your family provides you with the psychological support you require.
How is this practical? The neighbour/friend would most likely have no medical training. Why would this person spend 24/7 with another individual just to prevent them from hurting themselves and their children? How is this better than an actual medical facility?
Oh? A medical facility? You never mentioned this. Let's say a trip is taken for a Munchausen patient to a medical facility, how much would it cost to keep them there? And to what end? Homecare would definitely be cheaper than this option.
Alcohol addiction can be chemically controlled because it is a foreign substance introduced into the body that must bind to receptors for effect.
To be honest, this comparison isn't important to the debate- inside my head, anyway. To extend that though (seeing as you're stuck to this idea), therapy can also overcome an addiction like alcoholism. You've implied that it isn't a psychological problem, which it partially is. Usually there is a hidden emotional root to alcoholism, attributed to a possible past experience. In that way it is similar to Muchausen Syndrome.
Everyday we are hearing of reports relating to death by smoking either by cancer(mostly) or some other disease.
These sorts of death aren't particularly unique to an area. It does happen every day but this issue is not broadcast every day.
Yes it would be difficult to stop everyone in the world smoking but I feel that campaigns should be done to make people aware of the effects of smoking.
Yes, I agree it would be difficult. As for the campaigns- these are already being done! I've seen a large number of advertisements on TV. As well as that, children at school have been educated on smoking and what it does to your body both long and short term.
It may well be inspiring a decrease in smokers, but they still exist. Educating ourselves is all we can do to prevent the development of future smokers. We are already aware of the effects but people these days give in to peer pressure and smoke anyway.
Although I did see highly educated people smoking right in the public so........
You just contradicted yourself here. If people are this desperate, what is stopping them from purchasing and smoking illegally? We should continue a freedom of choice system. A lot of people will start, but a lot will also quit of their own accord. They are harming themselves. It's like banning knives from the public. Impossible.
