They're absolutely pitiful. I feel sorry for any young girl who is forced to be part of one. And who are we kidding? Of course they're forced. And those male panel judges probably go home and beat off to the kids who performed on stage. Disgusting.
Hardly any difference at all. The part of their platforms that IS vastly different are their typical stances on social issues like gay rights and abortion. Otherwise, they both support the welfare state, military interventionism, and the repudiation of most natural rights.
I don't think there should be any doubt about it. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, so the idea that you can get rid of it is incredibly naive. And just like with the banning of "narcotics", it creates another underworld of criminals and crime.
A couple of people on this thread have justified the ban on prostitution by asserting that all women (and men, for that matter) who become prostitutes do so because they had a traumatic childhood full of physical/sexual/emotional abuse. Even if that statement were true without exception, it wouldn't be relevant. A legalization issue is always centered around the question of "Which solution contributes more to the well-being of society?" And to me, the answer is clear.
The evidence that age restrictions are not effective and easy to bypass is overwhelming. I never knew a kid growing up who wouldn't drink because he was underage or couldn't get someone of age to buy him alcohol. The discretion should be in the hands of the supplier, because he is the only one who can truly monitor and enforce a responsible sale.
Of course. The idea that sex before marriage is immoral is completely ridiculous. More sex results in better mood and health (most of the time), and the urge to engage in it is natural and not something to feel guilty about. I feel sorry for the people that get indoctrinated to think otherwise.
As some other users have said, legally they have an obligation through welfare institutions. Morally? No. Their money is theirs because they earned it, and no one else is ENTITLED to it. However, if they don't invest some of their money in job-creating ventures and/or donate to charity many people (including myself) would view them as selfish.
Life without public schools? Definitely good. Life without school altogether, I don't know. Home-schooling has statistically resulted in higher test scores than formal schooling, but there is a social benefit to being in school. It's the easiest way for growing kids to meet people and make friends, and some kids find it easier to learn with other kids around. I'm not sure if the social benefit outweighs the inefficiency with which you learn compared to if you are home-schooled. But I'm inclined to think it doesn't.
It's possible until it's proven impossible. But I don't think there's any real logical/scientific basis for believing it could happen..considering the evolution of humans and dolphins are different. The dolphin's brain is indeed very highly developed, but parts of it are developed differently than a human brain because their environment is vastly different different than ours and that's a big part of what causes them to have certain abilities than we don't have and vice versa.
No. While it's true that certain young people are more impressionable than others, generally stating that popular music is a bad influence on young people is going too far. Too many examples of responsible people that listen to popular music.
It would be a total disaster. History shows that many societies without a fiat currency suffered from mass starvation and depopulation of cities. Without a medium of exchange, it is simply too hard to keep supply levels where they need to be.
In the world, definitely not. Particularly in the theocratic Middle East and certain parts of Africa where women are forced to play subservient roles to men. They're not even allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, even to pick up a man's groceries.
Nope. I understand that people's ideals are very important to them and they believe that contrasting ideals might be hazardous to their nation...but I can't understand why some people think it's right to lash out so violently. They should just buck up and accept the fact that all humans are not meant to think alike.
I'm against capital punishment, but not for moral reasons. It is simply more costly to the taxpayer than imprisoning criminals for life because of the courts' appeals process. Also, in my opinion, life imprisonment (especially in solitary confinement with windowless rooms) is a better punishment than a quick death.
No, they weren't as bad as media and textbooks make them out to be. Films about the Revolutionary War like "The Patriot" make the Brits look far more heartless than they really were. They make them look like Nazis for fuck sake...burning down houses with cowering families inside, shooting people on the spot for saying something they didn't like....it's exaggerated.
But just to be clear, I believe the Revolution was still necessary.
Yes. The reason why is if you outlaw one example of free speech that is deemed offensive there will be a snowball effect and people will just claim any form of free speech they don't like is offensive. That would effectively end free speech.
Also, censorship flat out doesn't work because people instinctively want to express themselves.
Um, no. Human beings are not perfect sentient beings who will always carry out the moral/rational/effective decision.
I think that particularly in the American system there is an appropriate balance of power and yet corruption gets worse and worse with the passing decades. There is no example of a government without some level of corruption, and for good reason: It's not possible to achieve.
Actually I'm quite sure it was the worst. I cant remember any time that officiating was the focal point and momentum swinger in so many games in such a short period of time. Plus, when was the last time you remember a ref awarding a team a fourth timeout?
Don't hate Muslims, just Islam. But then again I hate all religions. Except for maybe Buddhism or Hinduism. Is humanism considered a religion? I digress....this is no different than with any other situation like this...don't judge a book by its cover, use reason to determine what kind of person someone is.
I understand there were some bad calls in that game...and its easy to think after your team suffers two consecutive bad officiating games that the real refs are not much better than the replacements.
However, I can't remember any other three week stretch of officiating that was as atrocious as week 1-3 of the replacement refs. So rest easy Packers fan, the officiating will not continue to be this bad now that the real refs are in. Oh...Go Bears!
Absolutely not. Wars are always fought by nations for their benefit..they do nothing to improve the nation they invade. I believe that for an evil to be considered necessary, it must serve some objective purpose that isn't completely selfish.
Of course I must address the issue of pre-emptive war and retaliation war. When a nation feels it's security is threatened, it must gather all intel necessary to determine the level of the threat, and tighten defense on the home front accordingly. Not operate under the assumption that a nation is going to attack, and then attack them first. If that nation is reasonably concerned it won't be able to withstand the assault on its own, it must summon the support of its allies. Retaliation war is the only moderately acceptable form of warfare because it is a means of self-defense..and the use of self-defense is not morally problematic, in my view.
No, but I'd definitely want to get to the bottom of a few things. Like what his "plan" really consists of, and why to fulfill that plan he needs countless innocent people to die. Like why he needs to judge people based on their personal choices that don't affect him. And also, why he is so full of a petty human emotion like jealousy, thus persecuting all people who believe in (a) different god(s), ways of thinking etc.
Glad someone on this side finally got to the bottom line. It's not exactly an issue of self-expression, but of individualism. School uniforms are used to suppress the latter. Seeing as I am an individualist through and through, I could never support school uniforms.
I do love books; there's no denying they're a great resource on a great many things. But computers beat them all to hell. Nothing beats being a keystroke or a mouse click away from whatever information you need. I never go the library....except to use a computer! ;)
I'm a HUGE fan of that style of East Coast hip hop, and I do agree that most mainstream "hip hop" isn't hip hop at all. But there are still some mainstream artists that fit the bill: Common, Nas, Taleb Kwali, Jadakiss, Styles P, Trae The Truth (sometimes), Kanye West (sometimes), Lupe Fiasco, Eminem, Royce Da 5'9", etc. I don't like all of those artists, but I still gotta give em credit for being true hip-hoppers, if only some of the time. You just don't hear a lot of real hip-hop on the radio, but it's definitely circulating in the mainstream.
OK, there's a few signed metal bands that do. I would say about 5% of them or something like that. And I don't deny that metal band guitarists are really good guitarists. They are. I think that some of the best guitarists in the world play in metal bands. But they largely learned to play by experimentation, just like I did. Of course there's some fundamentals to learn first, like how to play power chords, open chords etc. But once they have those down and are somewhat familiar with what notes correspond to the strings, they can learn to play anything without reading or writing music.
No. Study after study shows that hitting as a form of punishment is detrimental to a child's psychological well-being. When you hit a dog repeatedly enough, it becomes mean. No different with a human. Also consider that an overwhelming majority of convicted violent criminals had a history of physical abuse by their parents. I'm not saying that hitting your child just once, for instance, counts as physical abuse. However, the more you do it, the greater the risk of undesirable results. Kinda like smoking cigarettes.
Also, there's many other alternatives to hitting anyway. Some would argue they aren't as effective..I say otherwise. Try harder, parents. No one forced you to have a child, don't lose your patience with him/her so easily.
My brother gave me some reason why technically hip hop isn't music, but I forgot it. I say anything with rythym/tempo and sound can be music. A co-worker told me just last week that most rappers don't know how to read / write music sheets and don't understand music theory so they aren't real musicians. I simply replied, your favorite metal bands can't do any of that shit either...so that's the end of that argument.
Yeah, we've sent aid to other countries...and most of the time I oppose such measures. I believe in charity over taxation. If people want to donate money to help North Korean citizens who's to stop them? It shouldn't be federal policy to help countries that are mortal enemies with the U.S. Moreover, in light of our economic woes, no new taxes would be great.
But I'm glad that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed more. Indeed, they already carry most of the load.
Absolutely. In American industries, unions are largely unchallenged authorities. A lot of times union members strike simply because they know they can get pretty much anything they demand. Also, as a result of their unreasonable demands, prices become higher and product quality worse because supply is decreased. And even if your state is a right-to-work state, it still feels these effects.
This topic sounds like one that was started by a crotchety old man with an intense hatred for young whippersnappers.
No generation can be completely useless, and Generation Z is no exception. For instance, I wonder which generation would be the best at technology innovation/maintenance/repair/sales. I think it might be Generation Z, considering technology is a bigger part of their lives than any other generation.
You suggest that we could help Mexico to improve its corruption, thus giving us the ability to help them econmically...but you don't give any specifics about how that could actually work. If a country is run by a very corrupt government (and yes, Mexico is more corrupt than the U.S.) the chances are very good that whatever financial aid you give them for specific purposes will be used for other purposes. Kinda like in the U.S. when people that invested in Social Security retire and are still unable to collect money because the greedy bastard government spent it all.
So, in short you underestimate how useless the efforts to help Mexico truly are based on the "circumstances" and "potentiality of talked about countries".
Not much can be done to "build" Mexico as a country when their government is so unbelievably corrupt. However, supposing it wasn't so corrupt, I don't advocate stretching tax payer dollars even further to build their infrastructure when the US is struggling economicaly.
If non-whites have less opportunity than whites when it comes to being chosen for a program, it is because of discrimination. Affirmative action is discrimination based on someone's ethnic background. It tries to fix discrimination by....discriminating.
That should suffice in explaining why I believe it doesn't help social inequity.
The best way to stop social inequity is to improve education.
Your 20's and 30's, hands down. Ofttimes you are no longer living with your parents and living your life according to your own schedule. You have many more responsibilities than when you were in high school/a teenager, but with that responsibility comes that much more freedom. Also, at these ages you are generally still void of any major health problems.
I don't believe people would be complaining about social inequity if whites were being underrepresented in a given industry. That is why I have a problem with the INSTITUTION of affirmative action, not the idea of providing social equity and equal opportunity (as long as it isn't achieved at the expense of a certain group).
Neither is better necessarily. Depends on a person's individual needs.
I'm the type of guy that tends to favor the single life...mostly because of the monogamy that typically comes with being in a relationship. However, I'm in a wonderful open relationship right now and can definitely say that for me, this is the most ideal situation to be in.
I would say very little. The idea that banning guns lowers violent crime is a fallacy. You need only look at the rates in concealed-carry states like Texas to know that.
As for the constitutionality issue, refer to what other posted said. As an aside though, if assault rifles existed in the time of the Founding Fathers, I don't believe they would consent to no federal control over their sales.
My emotions are somewhat mixed on the subject, but overall it COULD BE bad. I despise most government programs, but I think there's value in having a government space program solely for the purpose of perpetuating the human race beyond the next 5 billion years when the Sun is due to die (who gives a shit if there was ever water on Mars?). Terraforming or other means of space colonization can only be possible through a government program because I don't think there's any chance enough people would donate enough money to achieve the goals of such projects.
I don't think either thing is "better". There are benefits to both. I don't want to completely deforest the Earth, but deforestation creates products that human beings find useful. At some point, I believe we should be reforesting at a greater rate than we are deforesting, but I don't believe that the situation is pressing enough to do it immediately.
As for the issue of global warming, that situation isn't pressing yet either in my opinion.
No, of course not. I have no right to deny someone else a personal choice that doesn't affect me. As other posters have said, it's incredibly easy to avoid second-hand inhilation of cigarette smoke, if you're even that worried about it.
As for a government ban on the stuff...it appears too many people have forgotten (or just haven't learned) about the failure of Prohibition on alcohol in the 20's and how it created a booming bootlegging industry. There is always going to be a high demand for drugs and in general anything with intoxicating effects. Treating these matters of personal choice as criminal issues rather than medical issues is downright preposturous. Furthermore, if someone is addicted to cigarettes..why does it make sense to jail them rather than give them the means to break their addiction? Seems to me they're worth more to society if they're put on a path towards....working, and stuff.
No. Anyone who's ever been to P.E. class remembers the kids who walked the mile instead of running it, jogged to first base instead of sprinting, etc. The goal of P.E. is to improve the overall physical well-being of the student body. Since there will always be kids in P.E. who put forth as little effort as possible....it can never be efficient.
I've noticed that some posters on the other side of this argument have legitimized religion as being good for morality simply because it influenced ancient peoples to act morally. That to me doesn't justify religion. One reason why is in monotheistic religions there is a clear incentive for potential followers to do the things that that dogma dictates...LIFE AFTER DEATH. The world's human population has always been egoist rather than altruistic. If there is incentive enough to follow a certain moral code, then of course it wil be followed. It wasn't necessarily followed by everyone because all or most of the "teachings" resonated with the people involved with it. Another reason is that morality is subjective no matter what certain religions say. "God" is an IDEA created by mortal men, not the source of morality. Not everyone believes that murder is always wrong, as shocking as that may be to some people. Particularly theists.
No. As a previous poster alluded to, faith and science are not antithetical to each other, just as capitalism is not the opposite of collectivism, it is the opposite of communism. The reason why 99% of scientists reject religion is they understand that in order to exist you must have matter. Needless to say, but God is not made of matter.
Planes don't cut steel...flying at over 600 mph? I have my doubts. As for wtc 7, I am not about to speculate on the cause of that building's collapse, but if you wish to, go right ahead. There's obviously a lot of other things that could have happened there besides U.S.-instigated terrorism.
And yeah, I know all about Operation Northwoods. I also know about many other classified government plans. Non-terrorism ones too (i.e. the Tuskegee Experiment). I never said that this government won't do something if they have the POWER to do it. The government in essence has unlimited power, because a piece of paper like the Constitution is not a firewall to tyranny and corruption. So it's not a question of power, but competency. On the subject of Operation Northwoods...you have to admit that kind of a plot is not nearly as intricate and difficult to carry out as 9/11. All you've really gotta do is take government agents you already have, put an enemy uniform and facial disguise on em and let em go crazy.
I have deep-seeded animosity towards the U.S. government for failing to sniff out a terrorist plot that was 10+ years in the making come 9/11. I'm also resentful because their interventionism in the Middle East over the course of a decade or more played a role in instigating the attack. The events of 9/11 are not only terrible because of the massive loss of life, but it has propelled a "War on Terror" that is absolutely destructive economically and militarily.
Thank you for clarifying. Since I'm a staunch minarchist and don't believe that government is effective at solving social/economic problems and so forth I would tend to agree that revolution is a better option. I would say it depends on the nature of the revolution, however. Revolution from economic tyranny, war collectivism and the like can sometimes result in an even worse form of tyranny. (i.e. 1930's revolutionary Spain) As long as people value liberty for all, things in society tend to be better overall...at least, in my view.
The fact that planes flew into the buildings should be evidence enough that it wasn't a government plot. We know who flew the damn things too. Also, as previous posters have said, people on the other side of this argument overestimate how competent and efficient the government is....period.
Yes, but only because of the imposition their religion places on their society as a whole. Too many politicians are legislating from the Bible, and religious interest groups influence policy making to reflect their beliefs and exclude others' repeatedly. People have this idea that America is a Christian nation, when in fact, it is secular and freedom of religion is a natural right under the Constitution.
