Catninja's Waterfall RSS

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

To answer the question you gave, "Is abortion the taking of human life?" I will point out that actually, abortion can be the saving of human life.

If a young girl gets pregnant before her body is able to safely deliver the baby, if there is an ectopic pregnancy, or if there are such serious medical complications that the baby cannot be delivered alive, an abortion will save the life of the mother. It may not save the life of the fetus, but in the case of medical emergency the fetus cannot always be saved.

As to whether it is human, it consists of human cells. This cannot be denied. Whether it is life is another matter. In its very earliest stages the zygote is not a life in its own right -- it is organic, but it is currently a cluster of cells without any kind of consciousness.

1 point

But if we do that, don't we risk implying that we can't be responsible for our own choices and actions?

1 point

I'm normally not one for conspiracy theories, but it does seem a little coincidental that Diana's bodyguard, with whom it was rumoured she was having an affair, was removed from his position and was killed three weeks later in a motorcycle accident.

I'm not convinced that Phillip would have made the decisions, though; Diana's actions were reflecting poorly on the rest of the Royal Family and I think it more likely that someone else (maybe someone who was responsible for maintaining their public image) made a private decision to have her killed.

1 point

If you can persuade me that you're willing to make a proper contribution to this debate, I will lift the ban I've just placed.

This is a serious debate. Please do not go off-topic.

1 point

Oh yes, I'm happy to disagree with people as long as it remains civil, and you've always been pretty civil towards me.

But it's a nice feeling when you realise you agree with someone on something.

1 point

That's not what he was actually saying, if you had read the OP.

He was saying that MANY Americans aren't interested in the rest of the world. Not the elite or those in power who have vested interests in what happens outside the USA, but the average American on a site like this one.

We aren't talking about the people who offer the UK gas, or keep a check on China. Those aren't the everyday Americans writing debate after debate and hypocritically belittling those who don't understand American issues because well, those people aren't American.

I have seen many a site where most people assume you to be American and are very surprised when they find out you aren't because "everyone's American on the Internet".

Considering the number of very samey US-centric arguments on here, this site is not much of an exception.

2 points

Jeffrey, I know we've had many disagreements on this site, but I completely agree with you on this.

I've seen several debaters trying to make specifically American issues relate to the whole world. For example, those who criticise "liberals" when what they actually mean is the American Democrat party and their supporters, or those who criticise "conservatives" when they mean Republicans.

1 point

I can see how it might be interpreted that way.

On the other hand, modern black culture is not all a result of white people. The concept of a collective culture may have been formed as a response to slavery and oppression, but the people who engage in that culture were the ones who shaped and influenced it.

1 point

This is the kind of attitude that makes me actually want to be a Christian again.

1 point

the most violent race of human beings throughout the history of mankind.

We can only assume this. In recent history, from perhaps the 1600s onwards, this is perhaps true, as white people were the most powerful racial group.

But we have no records for the time in history when all humans had a tribal mentality and would gang up on each other to steal land and resources, and wipe out other cultures. Furthermore, there were plenty of very violent non-European civilisations such as the Mongols, Atzecs and so on. There were plenty of very violent non-European leaders such as Mao and Pol Pot.

So in short; yes I agree with you on everything but the bit I quoted above. When Empress Wu was torturing her subjects and Attila the Hun was leading invasions, the Europeans were a disorganised rabble who still painted their faces with woad.

1 point

In some ways I feel like a country shouldn't ban something on religious grounds. Allowing one religion to have monopoly over the laws of a country can lead to escalating situations where the country becomes a totalitarian theocracy. For example, women in Saudi Arabia not being allowed to do anything without a male relative's permission.

However, consumption of beef is not a right, and if the majority of the population supports the ban then it should stay.

I would have said a fairer course of action to non-Hindus would have been to allow the consumption of beef in private property, but ban it from being sold by street vendors and in restaurants.

2 points

I voted Labour in June's General Election, but I may have voted Conservative if I'd liked their policies and Theresa May had struck me as actually being competent at her job. As it was, I preferred to vote May out and have another run with some new policies and ways of thinking. I didn't vote Labour because I was left-wing.

While I basically support everyone to have the same rights and freedoms, I don't shout about it from the rooftops and people who do that tend to give me the impression that they want to know how great and wonderful a citizen they are, rather than actually caring about the issues.

Although I'm bisexual, I'm not really a fan of the LGBT community as a group as the vocal people in that group strike me as being more aggressive than progressive. Similarly, I'm not really a fan of the modern day feminist community.

I have some more right-wing attitudes to education, child discipline and immigration. I don't agree with Trump, who is further right than I am, but I don't see the issue with having slower, more controlled immigration so public services can cope better with the population growth and requirement for people to understand more languages.

I don't see the issue with slapping a child on the wrist (in school or the home) as long as you aren't beating them or touching them inappropriately.

I am in favour of gun control, but most people in the UK support gun control and it's not particularly tied to a political party.

I oppose fox hunting, as most left- and right-wingers do.

I believe in people working hard to earn an appropriate place in society, and I believe that businesses are a good thing for the economy (but I also believe that they should not be allowed to grow more powerful than governments, and they should be paying, not dodging tax).

I strongly dislike being put into the left-wing box. I might lean slightly more left with my opinions than I do right, but I have more in common with someone slightly on the right than I do an extremist on the left.

0 points

I'll take this to mean I've won the argument as you don't have anything to say in reply.

1 point

I think it less to do with liberals and more to do with history.

Many black people were forcibly separated from their cultures when they were sold into slavery. Today, a lot of African-Americans do not know their original roots because of this. Therefore "black culture" came about not as a result of old traditions, but as a way for people to distinguish themselves from the whites.

(I say a lot of African-Americans; I understand there are some African-Americans who settled in Western countries at a later date and retained their original cultures).

Asian-Americans tend to have stronger ties to their original culture than African-Americans do. Asian cultures, especially the Confucian cultures, have a strong emphasis on educational achievement. Parents are often very keen to see their children succeed.

Indian parents, especially Hindus, also tend to want to see their children become doctors, lawyers etc. so push them to work hard at school.

It's mostly about culture, not about who's in charge.

2 points

I think it's very simplistic to say that right-wingers are less intelligent. There is a tendency for them to be less well educated, but that alone doesn't necessarily mean they're less intelligent.

Does the study take into account the different types of left- and right-wingers? For example, you can be fiscally right-wing but not morally right-wing. You can be a left-winger who believes everything they read in the newspaper. What sort of intelligence is being tested?

People who are dogmatic are more likely to be less intelligent and this goes for both extremes on the left-right spectrum. This is because adhering blindly to one set of beliefs and immediately rejecting critical analysis of these beliefs implies gullibility and / or a lack of ability to think for oneself. Both right-wing and left-wing people can be dogmatic.

Failing to critically analyse your own beliefs, or being unable to acknowledge that you aren't always right, doesn't necessarily mean low intelligence but it can be indicative.

Prejudice, too, can and has been demonstrated by the left wing, although it tends to be wrapped up in a parcel of, "This isn't racism / sexism, it's justice."

I think there is a general trend for the right-wing to have lower IQs than the left-wing, but I have a feeling that low IQs are associated with extremes and the higher IQs are generally more centrist.

Of course I might be biased in that view.

2 points

Agreed, but it goes both ways.

Extreme liberals may throw accusations if they happen to be poor at debating.

However, I have also seen plenty of examples of extreme conservatives living up to those accusations if they themselves are losing. They often attack their opponent with ad hominems, calling them evil, crooked, dumb, or making inferences on their gender or race.

The extremes on both sides are equally unpalatable. Thankfully they are a small minority of the population, even if they are vocal.

1 point

We all know that their are species of animals (the vast minority) whereby the female is the stronger of their species.

Don't you ever do research before you blindly write something down?

Among animals other than mammals and birds, it is far more common for females to be larger than males. Females are the larger sex in most reptiles other than lizards and crocodilians; in most amphibians and fishes; in the vast majority insects, spiders and other arthropods; in almost all “wormy” animals; in various phyla of tiny animals such as water bears and rotifers; and in almost all parasitic animals. In hard-shelled animals such as molluscs and lamp shells the sexes seldom differ in size, but when they do, females are the larger sex, and the same is true for brittle stars, sea lilies and sea stars. Overall, I discovered size differences between the sexes in 49 different animal classes and in 86 percent of these females were the larger sex

Source: b3177995.html

With hyenas, the female is the stronger of their group so therefore they are OBVIOUSLY following the role they were meant to follow.

This is true. Hyenas have to survive. Humans have society, and their needs (Maslow) are met by modern life, so the rules of nature do not apply as they would in the wild.

Men are OBIOUSLY the stronger of the two in the human race. Feminists refuse to accept the natural order of human beings. They ignore evolution, they ignore God, they are insecure people who refuse to accept the naturral order to life.

No one is forcing them to play any role, we are simply not trying to deny the naturral roles of people.

"Natural roles" assume that we still live in "nature". Unless you're living in a tribe somewhere in the Amazon rainforest, you probably don't live in nature. You probably live a relatively comfortable existence with access to food, shelter, technology and so on, since you are able to use the Internet.

The roles are clearly not that natural if they vary between cultures. For example, take a look at the Chambri people of Papua New Guinea.

I, along with the majority of "feminists" (traditional, not SJW feminists) are happy to allow men and women to do whatever roles they like, whether they are traditional or not. Your role is your choice, but you don't have a right to force someone to do something.

1 point

The roles between male and female in nature is obvious.

Actually they aren't.

In hyenas, the females are more aggressive than the males, and the head of a hyena clan is female.

In jacana birds, the females are not the ones that nurture their young. This is left to the males, and the females leave to mate with other jacanas.

In clownfish, the female clownfish is the dominant in the group. If the dominant clownfish dies, the second biggest clownfish changes sex to female and becomes the dominant clownfish.

In buffalo, the female buffalo democratically decide the movements of the entire herd.

In bees, the queen bee is female.

In komodo dragons, the female komodo dragon can lay fertilised eggs without a male.

In the praying mantis, the female is larger than the male and frequently decapitates the male after mating.

In marmosets, female marmosets do not nurture their young and leave this to the fathers.

In topi antelopes, the female is the one which pesters the male for mating.

In orcas, the pod is matriarchal and headed by a female.

In lions, the lionesses are the ones which do the hunting.

1 point

I can put context-free sources into my debates too.

4 points

I cannot understand how anyone could trust a Christian to make rational decisions based on hard facts when their minds are contaminated with fanciful notions of some mythical character zooming around the cosmos who must be praised every day in prayer, verse and hymn.

The majority of Christians are perfectly capable of making rational decisions, especially those who are not strong followers of the faith and believe that rational thought is a better means to understanding faith anyway. A very good example of this is Quakers.

Please, please cast your mind back to the time when you were being brainwashed by the ''CHILD-LOVING'' clergy and recall some of the ridiculous nonsense you were asked to believe.

I wasn't asked to believe anything in church. In sermons, we had Bible passages analysed and were told that these might be good guidelines. I've spoken to plenty of people who'll take much of the Bible as allegory.

Christians are dangerous people to have in public office, especially high office.


Mushroom clouds appearing all over the globe because ''The Lord'' came to me in a dream and ordered me to annihilate all sinners.

And those people are the sort of people that should be getting de-radicalised. I never said every single Christian ever was going to be suitable for the role.

Then again, I live in the UK where people are Christian, but usually do a good job of keeping their beliefs separate from their work and family lives.

1 point

How can God be love when He hates those who will have nothing good from Him? God is love, so how can an atheist in Hell be loved by God? How can God be love while He hates atheists?

Isn't it good to know God punishes sin, and isn't it good to know sinners will be forever separated from those who thank God for His mercy and know that they have it?

You must be a satire account. Either that or you're undergoing a serious crisis of faith, in which case... message me. I've been there.

Moving onto the topic:

How can God be love when He hates those who will have nothing good from Him?

God does not hate. This is the very kind of Westboro Baptist Church / Old Testament style thinking you tell everyone NOT to follow. God is love. Jesus told us that much. Jesus also told us to love our neighbours, no matter what colour or creed they may be. God is not a hypocrite... so God does not hate.

God is love, so how can an atheist in Hell be loved by God?

Either Hell does not exist, or God still loves you in Hell (which I find strange... but that's religion for you).

How can God be love while He hates atheists?

Atheists do not have any idea that God exists. Perhaps, because you've been raised a certain way, you have been "trained" to see God in things. But think of it like being an artist or a mortician. If you put on "artist" glasses then you see great beauty in everything and everything is a potential subject for a painting or a piece of creative art. If you put on "mortician" glasses then you might see death, rot and decay where others might see life. It's just an example and doesn't correlate to how theists and atheists see the world differently. It also doesn't mean that one view is right and one wrong. It just illustrates how you might not see the same thing in something because you have not been "trained" to see it.

So if atheists don't see God through no fault of their own other than they don't have access to the "God" glasses, why would God hate them? God loves everyone.

Isn't it good to know God punishes sin, and isn't it good to know sinners will be forever separated from those who thank God for His mercy and know that they have it?

Why create beings in the first place if you don't intend to be merciful?

It's God's rules, he can let who he likes into heaven. But it doesn't necessarily prove there is a hell. Jesus said that if we believe then we get life beyond death. If we go to hell, we're still conscious after death. It would make more sense to annihilate the sinners so they simply no longer exist, than it would to turn them into the toys of one of God's former followers.

2 points

Just because certain theists on this site write ridiculous debates, it doesn't mean those opposed to them can't take the moral high ground.

Of course Christians should be allowed to run for public office. Any properly qualified individual from any demographic should be allowed to influence the politics of their country.

Christianity is not a disease to be cured. Whilst one might disagree with someone's beliefs, it doesn't mean they need another religion, or atheism, being pushed down their throats.

The only time I would say an individual should not be allowed to run is if they are completely fanatical (Christian, Marxist, atheist etc.) and their beliefs are going to harm others, in which case they should probably be de-radicalised.

We should also encourage those holding official positions to be properly representative. Around 70% of Americans identify as Christian, therefore around 70% of elected officials should ideally identify in the same way (they don't have to be "fundamental").

In the UK, the ideal number of Christians would be around 40% to reflect the religious views of the populace.

2 points

I don't think any publicly funded school should be allowed to enforce any type of worldview.

This includes political parties and religions. While atheism is not a religion it is still a worldview. You can be a quiet atheist just as you can be a quiet Republican or a quiet Christian, but it remains something that shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Having a secular school is fine as it doesn't favour any one religion. Having a multi-faith school is something I'm OK with.

Having a school promoting atheism (rather than simply free-thinking) makes me uncomfortable as much as a school promoting Christianity, Marxism or anything else would make me uncomfortable.

I think it's dangerous to put up pro-atheism posters in a science department because it encourages the belief that science is directly opposed to theism when this is not the case.

Something like, "Question Everything" would be more appropriate as it's not pushing atheism but still encouraging young people to be independent thinkers -- something which a pro-atheism poster is actually not doing.

1 point

Now you know how everyone else felt when seeing Bill O'Reilly throw fits on live TV.

1 of 11 Pages: Next >>

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