Of course if it's supported it doesn't mean it's right. It does mean, however, that you're a citizen of a government and because it's a democratic form of government, you have to deal with what the majority rules.
Don't like it? Hey, now you know how gay people feel!
Because you choose to opt in to the government (by not opting), you opt in with all the benefits and problems that come with it. The government is not technically stealing from you because you as part of the voting mass gave consent.
The idea that people should be punished for a sexual preference that they have not acted on is the definition of thoughtcrime. No matter how reprehensible an desire is, unless it is acted upon or shows signs of being acted upon. All humans have violent urges, shall we punish all humans? Rape fantasies are common, should we punish them?
The vast majority of pedophiles we are aware of are those who act on their desires. This doesn't mean there aren't pedophiles who don't act on those desires, after all, every other desire for something morally wrong can be kept inside the head.
Doesn't matter. Most people support taxes and authorize the taking of the money by the government. If you disagree, you are able to campaign, disobey, vote, or opt out entirely (and by that I mean the typical conservative argument of "if you don't like it get out!").
"Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or direct worker ownership and control of the means of production and allocation of resources."
While the government does exert some control over some means of production and does engage in a small amount of wealth redistribution, no case has been made that shows that this will eventually result in direct worker ownership and control of society's means of production and allocation of resources. When heirs and heiresses start having to actually work for a living instead of being born into wealth, the terrified reactionaries might have a case. Until then, they'll have to accept that they don't know jack shit about what socialism actually is.
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
0.4-1.6% of Americans are atheists (the studies I looked at differed on whether or not they bothered to listen to what atheists referred to themselves as). I would hardly call atheism the foundation of liberalism considering at best they'd make up about 4% of liberals.
Now, if you want to talk about secular philosophy...you know, the ability to entertain a thought without attributing it to God somehow?
While I'm no fan of government or our government especially, this is a gross oversimplification. The final man is not simply some random person with no authority. You, the voter, have a (small) amount of control over the tax system. In exchange for all citizens paying taxes, the government provides benefits and uses it to, you know, govern. You probably vote, so I assume you want to be governed?
Is this the best system? No. But it's not theft if there is collective authorization to take the money. If you find that too terrible, I encourage you to give up every single government benefit and challenge the government on that. Good luck, if you really bother. I doubt it.
This isn't a debate, this is a claim.
I would argue that considering atheists are one of the most hated groups and are a very small group, they have more reason to be defensive if attacked. However I disagree that it is easier to yank an atheist's chain than a theist. Over the course of history, attacking a theist's position generally has resulted in, y'know, violence.
Being asked to pledge allegiance to "one nation under god" means two things: first, it is declaring that the nation is Christian (it is heavily implied that it refers to the Christian God, let's not be intellectually dishonest and pretend otherwise, alright?) and it is requesting that citizens pledge allegiance to that god. This is a clear violation of separation of church and state.
Completely irrelevant to the debate's question. Your own lack of empathy does not make teen mothers more or less to blame for welfare, they represent a tiny portion of those on welfare and are not the group that is keeping welfare present in our society.
I fail to see how you're disputing anything I've said. I provided evidence (that was unfortunately already provided) that teen mothers make up 7.6%--seven point six percent!--of mothers on welfare.
Mentioning that other welfare myths exist (you mentioned black, nice to know you're aware of such myths) doesn't invalidate my point at all.
Yes. Regardless of whether you feel patriotism and loyalty to a government are good things, a government should not consider spiritual belief a part of it's requirement for loyalty. Separation of church and state are founding principles for our government, and a good idea all around.
Also, it's spelled allegiance.
A global language is likely impossible because of cultural differences. Language reflects how we think and what we think, from how we view time to whether we consider numbers important at all. Many cultures lack words for concepts our culture has always been aware of, and vice versa. A global language, unless it is pure and simply a trade language, will have to choose which sort of worldviews it uses.
You are completely right. History is a lot easier to whitewash than the confusing and changing world that is happening now. It is incredibly easy to say that the world is getting worse then your view of the past is blinded by a poor understanding of it.
Neither the punishment of innocent teachers, nor risking the safety of children is an acceptable outcome when a teacher is accused of serious misconduct. While the process can take years, far less damage is done if the teacher is placed in a non-teaching position but still working, for example grading and assisting other teachers.
Language changes by way of natural selection--it's been changing greatly over the years. Just try reading something from the colonization of America, you'll have a hard time of it. Language will change itself as it needs, and we don't need 1984-style "fixes".
"Shouldn't be forced"?
When an individual's poor choices only affect them, that's their own business. When their poor choices destroy the environment of the entire planet? That's no longer just their business. Others have a right to step up and defend the air, ocean, and working ecosystems that belong to everyone.
The facts simply don't support the myth of the teen mother, or even the myth of the non-white mother with tons of children milking the system. Sorry, folks!
Edit: Apologies, I've been using this link for so long I didn't even realize someone else already had--touche!
