:O Standing in the sidelines watching this epic flame-war play out on my thread
German culture; I really like their traditional food. Also, I admire that Germany has almost always been a leader in technology and societal development.
If I had to choose a culture other than German, I would choose Icelandic. Once again I admire that country has been at the forefront of societal development.
What if one were paralyzed from the neck down and had average intelligence (100IQ)? Of course Hawkings is beneficial and useful but what if someone were not that smart? Just because they have a conscious awareness that mentally retards don't does not make their brain a utility.
I find that there is a distinct difference between someone who is stupid and paralysed and someone who is mentally retarded. I believe that a mentally retarded being (depending on the severity of the retardation) cannot even measure up to a stupid person in terms of intellect or even personality.
To put it simply, I do not think a stupid paralysed person is even remotely similar to a retard in that they still have a life: they can still learn, communicate, share ideas, have goals and dreams, and generally still be a person (albeit restricted).
Dang, I had no idea stuff like this existed. Anyways... I believe it should be banned because as the old saying goes:
"If what you are doing is really innocent, then you shouldn't have to hide it"
:D
For my argument I would like you to think of a human that is so mentally handicapped, that they just sit in a chair and drool all day. The human cannot feed itself or properly go to the bathroom. Any attempted communication consists of random incomprehensible screams and wails.
Physical disabilities? No.
Mental disabilities? Yes.
I find that people with with mental disabilities (particularly severe retardation cases such as anencephaly) are a problem to society. Because of their mental state, they are not beneficial to the world in the way of contributing something.
For comparison, a person with a physical disability (such as a missing arm or leg) can still contribute to the world via mental skills and abilities. A person with a severe mental disability that renders them incapable of even the most menial tasks cannot do anything; they are literally (I feel) just a parasitic drain on resources.
If an incapable being is completely unwanted by everyone and anything, is it immoral to consider its termination? Is it wrong to destroy such a thing just because it is alive? Think of it as this: Would you keep a cancerous tumour alive?
To put it bluntly I believe that beings that match what I have described above, should be terminated to maintain the integrity of society.
Note: I've got the feeling that my post is going to be flamed hard; therefore I have brought hot dogs and marshmallows :D
This video explains everything regarding Pluto and it's title of "planet"/"dwarf planet".
Heck no. Too many weird hypothetical complications that come with being immortal.
Do you know what happens if a person is alone too long? They go crazy.
The Empire in Star Wars was based off of Nazi Germany. Who wouldn't want to be a stormtrooper?
"For the Emperor!"
I don't think it should be oppressed, but I also don't think it needs to be "expressed".
I am given the impression by the debate description that Wicca should become more public and common; I disagree with this. As I said before Wicca is just another bat-shit-crazy religion to me, and as such I do not not see any major positives for it becoming more known and possibly spreading. That said, I also think that it should't be oppressed as people have the right to believe anything they want to.
Does this clarify my argument?
Honestly, to me it's just another bat-shit-crazy religion.
Edit: Switched Sides of Debate
The poor fellows are restrained from every pursuing true greatness and knowledge.
Gawd... this could easily turn into some really dark and twisted humour XD
Do fictional religions count? If yes, I admire Mandalorian and Vampire (from House of Night books) religion. I don't care for any human religion.
Could I be a beautiful woman for just a couple of days? Just long enough to film myself doing things? ;D
To respond seriously, I'd choose male as I like being a guy; plus I don't want to deal with monthly calls.
I'm in agreement with you. What type of new energy source do you think will replace oil though? My guess is nuclear fusion.
I was going to address most if not all of your post, but you seem to be too much of a cunt to see past your irrationality. I will not reply to anymore of your posts due to the reason I have given. My last statement to you is GTFO and KYS.
It seems like a good idea, but then what about crazed criminals firing metal rounds? I'm just thinking that overall it is more effective and efficient to take on baddies with equal armament.
Wtf?
a) My original post was not aimed towards black males, nor do I think any previous posts were.
b) You could be considered racist with your generalization that black males are "much more endowed"
c) I don't have anything against other races; if any of my previous posts seem or are racist, you should take note that I did not intend them to seem or be that way.
d) I like to describe myself as an nihilistic atheistic existentialist
Not much else to say but to call you a cunt and tell you to fuck off so...
Fuck off cunt.
I know so many people who really need to read your argument and actually become intelligent. Thumbs up for being a smart person.
I agree with your argument.
From my point of perspective, life does not have an inherent or grand purpose; however that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it by creating purpose. I want to live my life because I want to experience good entertainment, fantastic food, and love with another being. Though my life isn't worth much on a cosmological level of value, it is worth a great amount on a human level of value.
I find that whenever something like this comes up, Christians immediately jump to the argument of "You're all interpreting it wrong! Praise Jesus!" or some other delusional BS. Still, it is interesting...
The world would be a better place without you correct?
Maybe, maybe not. I know it would definitely be a better place without you. KYS? :D
The self love and arrogance of pro choice loonies is beyond rational.
Depends on your perspective. I feel the same way about pro-life loonies such as yourself.
The utter inhumanity of any people to sacrifice others for their own sake is beyond hideous.
That's how the world tends to work; deal with it.
It is my personal belief that he would look like this). I also believe that he would start a new revolution against the bourgeoisie and establish another magnificent utopia of equal persons.
I agree, unwanted bastard children just pose problems to our society :D
Pretty much. lolzors and starchild123 are either trolls or mentally insane.
Urban Dictionary:
The worst day of the week. Sucks because you would rather be hitting arms, or shoulders, or chest, or even back, but you are stuck working the part of your body that shows the least. Usually involves a large amount of walking around, stalling, and hype. If you skip leg day, you will be deemed a bitch and be called such from then on out. Best pump, but usually involves the most work
"Hey tom, you hittin leg day?"
"Fuck yea brah, I ain't a bitch, leg day every day!"
I don't get it....
Sorry for an confusion, but I mean valid as in having a sound basis in logic or fact. For you argument, can you explain how the information is valid?
think about if your parents aborted you.
If my parents aborted me I would not care, as I would not exist.
However, that baby is a human
Please define a human.
It is alive and thriving
Mmm... like a tumour.
and will potentially be born as a full size baby human.
Potentially. Sperm also has the potential to become a full size baby human, but it still does not have any rights.
If a mother gets an abortion the day before the child is due, it is considered a fetus, but if that baby has come out of the womb it is a baby?
I would not even consider a newborn baby a person yet... please refer to my post on the other side of this debate.
but if that child speak it would say "I don't want to die."
That's just it, it can't. That "child" isn't even aware of it's own existence yet.
The conclusion is that from the moment of conception, that "Fetus" is a human, and they should have rights.
So far you have just given BS answers as to why a fetus should be considered a person. Seriously, give me a good definition of what is a person and then see if a fetus applies to the definition.
My opinion:
No. In order for a fetus to have rights, it must be a person. I define a person as something that is self aware and exhibits theory of mind.
From Wikipedia:
Self Awareness: Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals. Researchers have demonstrated that the awareness of ourselves begins to emerge at around one year of age and becomes much more developed by around 18 months of age.
Theory of Mind: Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.
ROFL, your whole argument is just so bad. Seriously, actually gain some intelligence before you post.
But those laws were changed by Jesus , that was why the Jews hated him and had him killed .
That^
What exactly do you mean when you say an objective moral? Do you mean some sort of action that is always absolutely good or evil? If that is the case then my opinion is no, as what is "good" and "evil" simply depends on what we perceive it to be.
Also, I am saying that morality itself is subjective.
What is "moral" simply depends on how we perceive it.
For example; a high ranking Nazi officer would most likely see Hitler's actions as just, while a Jewish prisoner in a concentration camp would see Hitler's actions as unjust.
Dictionaries have been under peer review since they have been first published. They consider all definitions relevant; Why don't you?
Because some definitions are completely retarded and are in need of revision/update. Some of the most intelligent users on this site have agreed that the definition (the one LeRocky posted) is completely generalized and can apply to anything; not to mention how it still isn't the most relevant one listed on Oxford and Merriam-Webster. So again, it is retarded to use that definition when it is so logically flawed.
I'm guessing that you consider yourself to be on some higher plain
To be completely truthful, I do (to a degree) think that I am on a higher plain as I am not restricted or hindered by some stupid stone-age belief of the existence of a magical sky wizard.
and therefore there isn't a need to use all information just bits and pieces.
Oh you mean like Christians when it comes to quoting the Bible?
How far is Heaven from you?
How far is rational thinking from you?
No, you do not understand the etymology and true meaning of the words "pursuit" and "devotion".
Are you sure you understand those words? This is more or less turning into a semantics argument.
And it is not my definition, but the official definition of both Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, although the latter phrased it differently.
From Merriam-Webster:
religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
From Oxford:
religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
The definition you gave is the third one listed on Oxford and Merriam-Webster. It is retarded to use that definition because it applies to almost anything.
/still a dummkopf
