This is why I hate debates over whether it's a choice or not. It can't be proven to straight people because they can never understand unless they are actually gay. The best proof I can give to you is this: I am gay, and, if I could change my sexuality, I would in a heartbeat. I live in a family of super-Catholics, where homophobic statements are expressed whenever someone remotely gay appears in the media or in real life. I have not come out to them, and I will most likely never do try to. All I want is for my family to love the real me, but I can't. Instead, I have to live this life of constant paranoia until I move on to college next year. I've known about my sexuality since I was eight; I'm seventeen now. Life has been miserable for about that long because I realized that it was wrong. I'm not trying to write you a sob story about why you should believe that being gay is not a choice. I am just trying to give you the best proof that I can, which is my personal experience as being gay. To me, this is proof enough, but, if you want to, I can go into all of the juicy details of why I'm not attracted to women, and it isn't because I'm sexist; I have many more female friends than male friends, if that doesn't surprise you. It's all because of the biological attraction to women, or even the fact that I have had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and the only ones that have ever felt right were homosexual ones. There are numerous other reasons why I know that I am gay, but those are the key ones that prove it the most for me. Sorry for talking your ear off, but I hope that this helps.
"I've been treated like shit most of my life, I should take it out on others." Is that what you're basically saying? If so, then I feel bad for you. I would and still do feel sad to hear that this has happened to you because I can relate. But just because I feel like I should be more irritable towards others doesn't meant that I should act out on it. It helps when I try not to be angry, otherwise, I treated like shit even more :/
Yes, but in the case of fighting back against the government of one such as the United States of America, you cannot state that there is evidence of such a revolution being successful. The government of the United States is far more powerful than any of the those other governments during that time. Yes, Libya and Syria were different, if you're referring to the modern day struggles, but they are still war-torn, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. If we are to even stand a chance against our government, we need more than just guns. You can't successful fight against tanks, militaristic planes, missiles, and various other weapons with just assault rifles. So if you're suggesting that all the public needs is assault rifles to combat against a tyrannical United States government, then you might want to recheck what the government's capabilities are.
To be honest, though, I am fine with people having guns, but I see no reason for assault rifle possession among civilians. Why do people need something that can release such a large amount of bullets when the gun is already extremely lethal with just one in the barrel? I have not seen a valid reason as to why any civilian needs one. If you could please explain that to me, I would be very grateful.
You really think that civilians with assault rifles will be able to take back their government, which would hypothetically possess and implement powerful weapons such as tanks, missiles, and heavily-armed soldiers to control the public? This isn't some fantasized situation from the movies, where the civilians are able to outmaneuver and take back their government. The United States has one of the strongest militaristic systems in the world. I'm pretty sure that, in the case of civilians fighting back against the government, the masses would lose. Using the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore. It was drafted in the 1700s, where technology was limited to basic handguns and rifles, along with the occasional cannon. Times are different. I shouldn't have to explain the numerous advances in militaristic technology. The ability to kill is significantly higher. Does this mean that we should just abandon the Second Amendment? Absolutely not, but there should be restrictions on what civilians should be able to possess, otherwise, if you really want to completely follow the amendment, why not just let everyone have whatever firearm they want? I can guarantee that, if everyone possessed a weapon to "protect themselves", the mortality rate will rise. One disagreement that gets out of hand can lead to a standoff. Do you really want everyone to have to ability to possess high-capacity magazines with their assault rifles? It's just bound to get out-of-hand, no matter how much regulation is done. We are only human, and people make mistakes all the time. Unless there is a way to prevent every single human being from developing even the slightest feeling of anger, I will never back up the argument that assault rifles should be allowed for possession among civilians.
It is if you make it serious. For me, I see it as serious because it shows that you trust that person to share their body with you; it's one of the most open ways you can be with someone. So, in my opinion, yes, it's serious. But again, that's my opinion on what sex means to me.
Ok. Thank you for explaining that. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying in your initial description. Yes, I agree; haste is waste. I like to argue things carefully. Sorry if I presented myself as stubborn and jumpy when it came to debating.
I also agree that we need to work together to resolve the God debate on both ends, otherwise it isn't a mutual conclusion.
If you are asking from a moral standpoint: then no. But in all honesty, equality is a human idea. Nothing is ever equal. We cannot, however, determine whether girls are better or worse than boys; there are so many positives and negatives for both that it is almost impossible to figure that out.
I, however, believe that we should take the simple and peaceful route and say that both are equal.
Ok. You have absolutely no confidence in yourself. I am not saying it in a mean way. Here's the revelation. You have posted 4+ debates on how you can get women, and have repeatedly said all of the negatives about yourself and can't seem to find the positives. You are obviously at a low point in your life and possibly need to see someone about your pessimism. IF you want a way to find women without meeting them publicly, just use dating websites. They are an easy way to get familiar with someone before you meet. If you have good chemistry with them online, you are likely to have chemistry with them in public. I don't know what else to say besides this:
You need to take action in what you want. You constantly ask people on a debating website about how you can get a girl to like you, and yet, when it seems like great advice is showing up on each post, you just create another perspective debate over what you should do. Seriously, take action. You cannot find a girl by asking others. Yes, maybe you have failed a few times at meeting a girl, but if you fail many times, you need to find a different way to find one. Women only like guys without personality, success, and looks if they want to do community service and help them achieve one of those things. You, however, are doubting that you have any of them.
If you don't have a great personality, fine. That can always be changed. It is by psychologists that, if one pretends to be someone for a long enough time, they will eventually develop that persona as their own. This can be very bad advice though, because you do not want to use this to exploit women.
If you do not have success, it's not too late. You believe it is, and therefore, you make it impossible to achieve. If you don't have confidence in yourself and work hard, you will never achieve success.
When it comes to looks, you believe that you are average or below. The funny thing is, when a man has a lack of confidence in their looks, they usually turn out to be because they believe it to be true. Even if that man is generally a nice-looking guy, he can believe and cause his appearance to look bad through facial expression, dress, attitude, etcetera. Have confidence in your looks. Try to find features that you like about yourself. Soon enough, you will create a happier, more confident person, which is actually very attractive to women.
Actually... Rape is forced sex. Just pointing that out.
Click the link and read the definition of rape.
In your opinion, God sends people to Hell. It is not a proven fact, it is a belief.
As for the funeral part, I am neutral; either way is fine, but it depends on what the deceased wants. A party celebrating that person's life is meant to celebrate the things that they have accomplished, what they will leave behind that imprints their existence into history, whether big or small, and it is meant to be meaningful and joyous that they had a wonderful life on Earth.
Drake because 1) He's fresh and already has a lot of harder-hitting singles. 2) He got into the Songwriter's Hall of Fame within two years of hitting the mainstream. 3) He puts more heart into his lyrics. 4) A wide variety of audiences are raving over his music.
I know. I didn't state that overpopulation is caused by a drop in standard of living. I stated that overpopulation leads to a significant drop of standard in living; they are hand-in-hand. I think we are stating the same thing, but are just confusing each other because we are wording it differently.
Yes, it definitely is a very valid argument. It shows the contradiction of the idea of God. If one is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and benevolent (all-loving), ideally, that person, or in this case, deity, is perfect and will have perfection.
God is described as having all of these qualities, and because of this, His existence is disproved for many reasons.
For example, one could bring up the topic of natural disasters. God is benevolent, meaning that He would not want people to be harmed by these disasters. Seeing that He is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows that they will occur and has the power to prevent them, or to not create them in the first place. But why do they still occur? For natural disasters to occur, He has to have an absence of one of those qualities. He could be both omnipotent and benevolent, and just not know when they will occur. Or He could be benevolent and omniscient, and not have any power over the disasters. Or He could be omniscient and omnipotent, and not feel any remorse for those that die in those disasters.
This is just one example as to why "The Problem of Evil" is a valid argument. It can be applied to many aspects of life. If need be, I can post other examples to show how, in other ways, it is a good argument.
I agree with you that the standard of living will definitely drop once a state of overpopulation is achieved. The point that I am trying to explain, and probably have not effectively placed in my preceding posts, is that, once a general state of overpopulation is achieved, then yes, the standard of living will drop, whether it is significant or insignificant.
If it is a significant drop in the average, that means that a large percentage of the families that were already struggling before the drop will now be at more risk to possibly die off, and the mortality rate would go up. With a significant drop in standard of living, there is a significant drop in population, and it could take many years to finally bring the average standard of living up.
Which language was the first one you learned as a child? Based on proven psychology, humans learn languages easier when they are children. If you learned English as a child, then you can't say that English isn't harder, because you don't have the experience of learning it after learning your first language. It's harder to transition to a second language than it is to learn it first as a child.
It most definitely is not above 70% in all of America. In certain cities, however, it could be; they would be the ones where the population is very, very low.
Guns really aren't causing large amounts of deaths; in fact, they're very random. I advise you kindly to not make assumptions because you seem to be frightening yourself over what you think might be true, based on narrow observation.
It's fine. But still, getting a salad at a fast food restaurant isn't healthy, either. A majority of the time the produce is processed and they give a lot of dressing. Plus, the calories in those salads are usually really high.
I disputed to support myself.
Fast foods, in my opinion, is used stereotypically to brand a food as unhealthy if it comes out of a restaurant. Fast food is not always bad for you, but it rarely is good. I've yet to find a restaurant that makes food fast, but also makes it healthy, while keeping a lower price for it.
Here's a very good reason as to why this is happening:
In this era of American history, more Latinos are immigrating into the country. This may sound like a stereotype, but it truly isn't: Many are coming into the country looking for a better life, and the majority of those Latinos don't have a lot of money. Because of this, they are forced to buy cheaper foods, which usually means from fast food restaurants, and have to work extra long to get as much money as they can to support their families, taking time out of their home life.
Cheaper foods such as McDonald's and Taco Bell usually are usually the only option for those with less money. For example, the vast majority of Native Americans on reservations are forced to get fast food because they are living in impoverished areas. This is similar to immigrating Latinos. Latino families come to America with a small amount of money and have to find jobs quickly; if they can't, they will become broke and could possibly starve to death. That's why cheap foods are usually their best and only option.
When it comes to occupation, they usually can't find a very good job fast and have to resort to very low-paying jobs. That's why many usually stay more towards the border; the further north they travel to find a place to settle, the more money they have to spend.
Since both parents usually have to spend time working long hours to provide for their families, Latinos don't have a lot of leisure time to do things such as exercising. As for the gym part that you mentioned in the description, many can't afford to pay monthly fees, and even if they did, the harder-working families usually cannot go often, proving that a membership would be a waste of money.
It seems like you don't have much confidence. When you try to meet a girl, you can't just be friendly. Most "average" guys think they can't get their "dream girl", and they won't be able to because they have doubt. The thing that separates "extraordinary" and "average" guys is that level of confidence.
Extraordinary guys usually have a certain strength in them, whether its their charisma, wealth, or looks; this causes them to have a higher level of confidence because they believe that they can get the girl they want. Average guys, like yourself, have this doubt that causes a lower level of confidence, and it shows during social interaction.
My advice is to build up your confidence, and be genuine about yourself; usually these pretty girls are smart and have adjusted to be paranoid. They get tons of fake guys that only want them for sex. Show that you really want to be with them, and not use them.
Yeah, definitely. Match.com or eHarmony.com
And it also sounds like you're not confident in yourself. If you want to put your main focus on finding a suitable lady in their 30s, you need to show that you have confidence in yourself, otherwise you won't find many because many are waiting to be found. Believe in yourself every day, and you will definitely find someone soon.
But the zero power isn't times itself. Everything to the power of 0 is 1 because they divide by itself.
24^0=24/24=1 3508^0=3508/3508=1
With that said, 0^0=0/0, and I won't repeat anything because this is explained by the comments on the right side.
Oh yes, it is a sin. I'm not acting on the Bible's word.
That is a hypocritical statement because sin is an immoral action based on the text of the Bible.
I'm acting for humanity.
Saying that you want to kill homosexuals is not acting for humanity. It discriminates minorities that are part of your said "humanity", and you therefore are being hypocritical. In all honesty, we need birth control these days. If you aren't acting on the word of God, then I guess abortions and other forms of birth control are ok with you because they will allow us to prevent over-population, which could lead to lack of resources that are essential to humanity. So a very small population of homosexuals isn't doing any damage to humanity; discriminatory people like you are by separating all humans.
Ok guys. If you haven't looked at the title, the question is "Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?" (which should read, "Should homosexuality be considered as a sin?")
This should be an obvious answer to everyone. Yes, it should be considered a sin. A sin is a religious term for something that is immoral. So, to all Christians that take the Bible literally, yes, you are correct.
Here's the thing, though; the Bible is a hypocritical text, just like Christians are hypocritical about their religions. There are Christians that are constantly sinning, and most likely sin more than once every day. So, the question should be Which sins should be considered secularly immoral, and not religiously immoral?
I am an Atheist, and the answer is yes that homosexuality is a sin, which is an immoral action based on the Bible. However, homosexuality should not be considered immoral on the world stage because not everyone believes in the Bible.
Ok. Let me get this clear. You say that there is a beginning to everything, which I agree on; the thing that doesn't make sense is that you constantly say that, because of this, it is an entity that created the universe, despite the evident lack of valid evidence and proof.
The big question is, why does it have to be an entity that created the universe when there is more proof that it wasn't the work of an entity? Not only does the idea of God have no proof for its existence, but there are numerous hypocrisies that prove that God is only an imperfect, human idea.
The load of laundry won't start because it isn't made by the Earth; it's artificial. Nature made everything that was in the Old World, before the Technological Era began. For example, how is ice made? The freezing of water, which was originally something that could only happen naturally. Now we have technology, which allows us to freeze things on our own. The Earth isn't a machine (natural), which the laundry machine is (artificial).
Evidence, noun: 1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was evidence of his fever. 3) Law: data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
Proof, noun: 1) evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief that in it s truth. 2) anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3) the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4) the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5) Law: (in judicial proceedings) evidence having a probative weight.
Above from Dictionary.com
Below from Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary
Evidence, noun: 1) SIGN OF PROOF something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion: There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet. 2) PROOF OF GUILT the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime: The police have no evidence. 3) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry.
Proof, noun: 1) CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something 2) TEST a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true 3) STATE OF HAVING BEEN PROVED the quality or condition of having been proved 4) TRIAL EVIDENCE the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court's decision
Here are definitions from two different sources; there are even example sentences if you need them. If these don't help, let me know. We can work together to help you understand that they are so that you can apply them to your statement; putting proof or evidence into your statements turns sentences into arguments.
Sorry, maybe I'm confused, but you say that we can resolve the God debate if we accept that Christians believe, I repeat, believe, that God exists because of an unproven statement that God created everything there is except Himself. You haven't proven its validity in any way.
If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?
You have freedom of choice. You don't have to keep your promises when you make them.
To answer the scenario: You don't have to give them the money. There were no other witnesses of his death, and you can choose whether or not you follow through with that promise. If the children are already getting a lot of money, not giving them the money won't be as bad. If they didn't have the money, then it'd seem more immoral.
...of course, anyone who didn't vote for Obama.
Not true at all. You're saying that all liberals are intolerant of people that didn't vote for him, which isn't true. It's just a stereotype of liberals that some conservatives are using to try and leverage themselves against the liberals. Liberals are intolerant of lies that are used to make a party look better than the other.
Not every liberal is intolerant of anti-Obama people; there are liberals that don't plan on supporting Obama anymore, but they are still liberal. It's just like conservatives that don't plan on voting for any of the GOP debaters. There are some out there.
What's fucked up is that you're using religious beliefs to say that "we as a planet" are fucked. Gay rights activists aren't hurting anyone. You sound like a Southerner from the 1700s or 1800s. You're worrying about homosexuality and suicide (which is caused by people like you who discriminate homosexuals on a regular basis), and yet, you could be worrying about the economy, over-population, dwindling natural resources, etc, etc, etc. Religion isn't going to help the world; it's separating people instead of unifying them.
Just to clear this up before I dispute, I am not against men and women in the Army having families. It's their decision over whether or not they do. Freedom of choice.
In all honesty, not everybody should have a family. Yes, they are beneficial, but in all honesty, not everyone should because it'll eventually cause overpopulation, unless most families only have one child.
Here's the real question; it's very similar.
Would you rather get all of your insides sucked out at random rates and possibly get inflated a few times afterwards, or would you rather be the tube that has another objects insides flow through you?
Bisexuality is easier to hide than heterosexuality and homosexuality. Bisexuality, which is when a person is attracted to both men and women due to their hormones, can be hidden easier because one could say that they are either a heterosexual or homosexual.
For example, if a bisexual is in a homophobic area, he/she wouldn't have to hide his/her sexuality, but half of it. Now, if a person is a homosexual, and he/she were to be in that same area, he/she would have to hide their attraction to anyone and lie to the entire community in order to avoid discrimination.
What determines a person's sexuality, as proven by the science, is the balance of hormones for attraction; every person has both male and female attraction hormones (this is why almost everyone can tell when a person of either gender is attractive or not). Heterosexuals have the balance more skewed towards their own hormones, and homosexuals have the balance more skewed towards the hormones of the opposite sex. Bisexuality, however, has both sides of the balance very close to equal, causing attraction to both genders. The reason why this makes sense because the balance is never completely balanced at all. That is why bisexuals usually have a preference, such as a man preferring women over men, but still being fine with having a relationship with males.
That's basically what distinguishes bisexuality from heterosexuality and homosexuality. Bisexuals can be attracted to both genders without forcing themselves to, and heterosexuals and homosexuals are attracted to one gender, and have to go against their bodies if they want to like both.
It depends on what issue you are worried about. Religiously? Yes. Morally? Depends on what set of morals you are following; go with your instinctual conscience. Ethically? Based on today's ethics, yes, it is ethically wrong. So, based on the laws and regulations that society has set up for itself, it is wrong.
In my opinion, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, but that's my opinion.
But that's the thing. In the reality of the world today, even if three people of three different races were to be raised the exact same way, which is already a difficult feat to pull off, you cannot completely control how they think and react to certain things. People learn and receive everything differently.
The question is asking whether they contribute to youth violence. It does because it can act as an influence towards your actions. It isn't you completely blame the video games. You also blame yourself, which is what you said. Violent video games don't contribute to all of youth violence, but it does in some cases. It's just another case where the environment can contribute or influence a certain person's actions.
But you don't get it! An automatic machine only has one function: to complete the same action over and over again. It is limited in what it can do, and has no control over its actions. A human mind, however, has the ability to make its own decisions, despite outside factors; even if you are to be oppressed severely for your actions, you can still choose to act that way. How can you say that we are no different than machines? We are biological, not artificial. Only certain things are permanent by biology, but decision-making is not.
Free will is the ability to control one's actions and decisions. Everyone can choose whether they obey or disobey their parents. It just depends on whether their choices are influenced, and if so, they can choose whether or not they abide to those influences.
No choice is made at random
Of course not. But, like I said, you have the choice to either abide to those influences or not. Yes, the chemical signals play a part to. Their role is to make certain decisions easier or harder to make. But you still have the ability to choose which route you'll take.
When it is asking whether they contribute, it means to ask whether or not video games could be a factor for violent behavior. It isn't asking whether violent games should be completely blamed for violent behavior.
However, I do believe that certain people are using violent video games as a scapegoat, which they shouldn't be, because bad parenting and genetics also contribute to their behavior.
Were you trying to ask whether they should be blamed entirely?
When something contributes to a certain outcome, it means that it is one factor for that outcome. It could either have a small or large effect on that outcome. This is why violent video games contribute to youth violence. Their effect on youth violence, however, varies on the youth's response.
Sometimes there are youth that never demonstrate violent behavior due to violent video games. There are instances, however, where youth are partially influenced by video games; I personally have seen this. I knew a person that wanted to go to war because Call of Duty "made it look fun and adventurous" (a direct quote from him). This shows that video games can influence behavior and the routes or decisions that people make. In this case, he wanted to go to war, which he did; so why can't a video game influence violent behavior if it looks fun?
We all know that there are mentally-unstable people in this world, and there are also those who have weak moralities. These can be influenced by genetics or parental oversight, as stated before. These can contribute to their response to video games, and, if they do not receive them in the right way and find that harming others would be fun, entertaining, or even just the right thing to do. So yes, video games should not be entirely blamed for violent youth, but they can easily contribute to a violent state of mind if approached in the wrong way.
When it is asking whether they contribute, it means to ask whether or not video games could be a factor for violent behavior. It isn't asking whether violent games should be completely blamed for violent behavior.
However, I do believe that certain people are using violent video games as a scapegoat, which they shouldn't be, because bad parenting and genetics also contribute to their behavior.
Were you trying to ask whether they should be blamed entirely?
Couldn't you say that two people are never raised the same, and that, due to every mind being unique, certain actions throughout each twin's lives separates one from the other? Everyone grows up doing different things and responds to the outcome differently. So, even though one does grow up with the same things as another doesn't mean that they react the same way, whether there is a small or large difference in how they come out of childhood.
I agree that total equality in fact does not exist. But what if the entire topic of equality is just an ideology to make sure humanity doesn't believe certain people should get extra privileges or rights?
One thing to point out: You are telling me to study the English language when you clearly have no skills in Grammar. And yes, I know what irony, sarcasm, banter, and bullshit are. The funny thing is, yes, the Bible is a literal text. People wrote it to have a literal meaning. If you want to debate its fallacies, you need to take it literal and show how, when it is taken literal, how hypocritical and immoral the text is.
For example, if you were to look in Deuteronomy 22, you can see that it says "if a woman is raped in a city and does not cry out for help, she is to be stoned to death at the city gates." Now, you take that literally, meaning that it would be a law you would abide to. But, you can't take that law literally because it is morally wrong and because it says that thou shalt not kill. So, in doing so, you prove that the Bible, a supposedly-moral text that was meant to be a way of life, is actually immoral and contradictory.
Why would someone choose to convert to Christianity in Iran when they have the chance of being beaten, discriminated against, or murdered?
Because, if they don't convert to religion that they themselves believe in, then they will not go to Heaven, based on the very text of the Christian Bible. I am pretty sure that Christian Iranians are choosing a place in Heaven over Earthly discrimination, whether it is physical or not.
When it comes to homosexuality, however, one does not have any benefits coming out of it other than having to hide the rest of their lives. I know this for a fact. I have had to deal with discrimination, physical abuse, and other terrible things just because I like the same sex. Like I have explained to another debater, I would strongly prefer to be heterosexual. And I could lie to others and say I am a heterosexual to prevent future discrimination and a fewer amount of rights. But when I am making a choice not to closet myself, I am not making a choice to be gay. I am choosing to not hide who I really am biologically. That's why my homosexuality is not a choice.
You can force someone into having gender-changing surgery.
Sure you can. And all you are doing is changing their gender, not the hormones that cause them to be attracted to a certain gender. Unless you do that, they will still be attracted to the same gender from before the surgery.
Go into history and count the number of events in which atheists have done drastically-immoral things to harm those who are religious, and count the number of events in which Christians have harmed those who are non-believers (don't worry, I'll even leave out the Jewish just to give you a handicap). Don't write an ineffective counter-argument stating that atheists have done more in wrongs than Christians without mentioning both parties mistakes.
Oh, and by the way, no one's perfect. Not even you.
Then open your eyes! You're accusing people of being Skinheads because you are stereotyping all atheists! Not all are extremists; let go of your close-minded beliefs and see that there are moderates out there. They don't want to kill others for not agreeing with them. They just want to have the freedom to believe whatever they want, which is not believing in God.
How do you know for a fact that those two will, I quote, "shoot you", for not being an atheist. Old man, you're being senile. Where is any evidence that they will/ have done this? You have no basis for this statement whatsoever, and are falsely accusing debaters on a public website for being murderers. I'm pretty sure that by now they would have killed several, if not THOUSANDS, of people. America is a very religious country. Can I also point out that your efficiency is below 50%? Yeah, get evidence before you start saying shit.
Do 4 or 5 year olds choose to go to Sunday school?
Yes, they do, because they do not want to disobey their parents.
Suppose you wanted to buy liquor under the age of 21? Or cigarettes before the age of 18? Where's your freedom in that?
First off, the vendor has the free will to either let you buy them illegally, or not sell them and abide to the law; it is their free will to make that decision. Just like you wanting to buy liquor. You have the free will to either go against the idea of buying the liquor or cigarettes, or you could decide to go and attempt to buy the liquor or cigarettes, and trust the vendor. The outcome, however, does not affect your free will. You just make a choice to abide to society's laws, or go against them to get what you want.
For example, say you do decide to go buy the liquor. Your free will allows you to choose to go and try to buy it, despite society's laws. But, if the vendor does not allow you to buy liquor, your attempt has failed. It doesn't affect the decision you already made; the vendor's free will to sell it or not determines the outcome of your choice.
Same with the legal tender point. It is their free will to ask you or not about its legality. It is your free will to use legal tender or not. The consequences are completely different than free will. They are the outcomes of your actions. Just because your decision fails in the end does not mean that you don't have free will.
Are you free to take it from them if they do not wish to sell it to you?
You are free to make the choice to start building on that land. Law enforcement has the free will to take action and stop you from breaking the law any further.
So employers have no outcome in whether or not you get hired?
Yes they do, it is their free will to hire you or not. It is your free will to attempt or not attempt to get that job.
And if you have a job, do you get to choose how many taxes you are required to pay?
You don't choose who you are required to pay for taxes, but you can choose which one you want to pay. You are required to pay a certain amount to not have consequences at all. You do have the free will, however, to choose which ones you want to pay.
What's stopping you from going on a nude rampage?
Your rational decision, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of going on a naked killing spree and coming to the conclusion that you would rather not do it than be thrown in jail.
We are free to do what we please; but, it's a matter of what happens after the fact is what you're confused on.
Free will is not ending up in jail after you kill people naked. It's deciding for or against nude rampages in the first place after weighing each side.
You obviously are confused on the definition of free will, and until you reconcile that, you're not putting forth an argument worth my time responding to.
To clear this up before I completely bash this argument, I am completely neutral on this topic. I could care less who is better.
Wow... You disprove the intelligence part by displaying incompetent grammar skills (you use nouns as adverbs and adjectives while simultaneously misplacing commas frequently, show poor capitalization skills, etc, etc, etc), you try to place song lyrics into your debate and get them completely wrong (not "Who round the world...", it's actually "Who run the world...", which is the song title o_0), you say that men are only strong and not smart in your occupation point (you don't have to be too strong to lift a fucking gun; it takes intelligence to know how to use it effectively), and I will mercifully stop adding points because I would then be ranting, and it's useless, because you probably will ignore this and will think you are still correct. Have a good day.
No. That is called peer pressure. You still have the choice to not give in to what society is telling you to do. I'm not sure you really understand what free will means.
Here's a dictionary definition, for your viewing pleasure:
"noun
1.
free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2.
Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces."
So you see, just because society or your friends are pressuring you to do something or make certain choices does not mean that you do not have the power to make your own decisions.
As a fellow member of the human race, I strongly hope that you do not live your life letting society's will dictate everything that you do. This would be nearly impossible to do anyway, as the concept of "society" dictating what is acceptable and what is not while speaking as one entity is inherently flawed, as there will always be dissenting voices, as no two humans are completely alike nor agree on every single issue.
So, giving in to something is merely a lapse in better judgement, and if one desired, they could resist it.
That's because I am a homosexual. And I know what it's like to be bullied, hurt, and hated by so many people. Do you think I want to be discriminated? Absolutely not. I would rather be heterosexual than homosexual, but I can't because I don't have that choice. I can't control who I am attracted to or have feelings for. None of us choose to be homosexuals; it's biological.
I believe that, if the consequences aren't too large or harsh, you can choose lover over parents. In all honesty, relationships allow you to narrow down future possibilities, and you can see what kinds of people have great chemistry with you.
