Samudepu's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Samudepu's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

It's a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, which includes having a baby. Therefore they can chose to not have a baby. Therefore abortion is fine.

Also, because there is not scientifically agreed upon age of development at which a foetus becomes a human, you can't say that abortion is murder because you can't prove that a feutus of any age is technically human.

-1 points

In Australia, women are paid on average 22% less than men for doing the same job. Women are therefore not already equal.

1 point

P1: Guns cause death

P2: Less guns will cause less death

C: therefore banning guns will lead to less death

1 point

Hey all you people who don't support gay marriage, even if you don't want it to happen, and don't want it to be an issue, they're going to make it an issue until it happens. You make it more of an issue than it needs to be by denying them marriage. Might as well just let them do whatever the hell they want and go back to sorting out your own lives, huh?

1 point

If governments have the right to take lives, then then people should be able to choose not to live in a world where this is justifiable.

3 points

Often giving the majority of people what they want doesn't support the future of a country in a positive way, even if the majority can't necessarily see it. Things like gun laws and gay marriage (thanks to Obama) might not be supported by the majority, but less guns only means less fighting (which is good) and not supporting gay marriage is like saying "I'm on a diet so you can't eat donuts." (Not supporting is selfish). So even though these examples of things that Obama has done aren't supported by the majority of America, they make the world now and in the future a better place. Obama is therefore awesome.

I don't even live in America. #straya

1 point

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spok

1 point

The fundamentals of Kantian ethics are flawed. Kantian ethics bases its system on not paying attention to the consequences of actions. But the Categorical Imperative (a key part of Kantian ethics) asks us to justify actions by using the maxim 'Only do that which is universalisable' that is, actions are only moral if everyone could do them all the time. This part of Kantian ethics offers a direct contradiction, as considering universalisability surely pays attention to the consequences of actions.

1 point

Kantian ethics pays no attention to the consequences of the actions they do or do not take. But the rest of our lives are based on consequences. Systems of learning, how we know things and so forth. Paying attention to consequences is inherently part of human nature, and so we shouldn't build a system of morality (such as Kantian ethics) that is not based on consequences.

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]