CreateDebate


Corpse's Waterfall RSS

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

Yeah, science has proven we share DNA with chimps, bananas and zebra fish. Aside from that, I think you completely missed my point, which shows me how dense you really are. Please, for the love of God, don't open your mouth unless you know that what is about to come out of it doesn't sound completely moronic.

1 point

The U.S. Constitution actually outlines the rights we have rather than constrain them. Instead, it stops the federal government from overstepping its bounds (though apparently it becomes less effective and acknowledged as time goes on).

In actuality, humankind has the ultimate freedom to do whatever it wants, even despite the existence of laws. But we are not free of the consequences of said freedom.

1 point

Thank you for your explanation. I cannot say my beliefs align with yours (nor do they need to, of course), but I still find your answer intriguing and delightfully informative. :)

1 point

There would also be lasting psychological ramifications for those who enact the violence in vengeance.

I should have clarified my stance on mirror punishment. Yes, I do believe the survivors, if not the victims themselves, should have the right to exact punishment. But they should also be free to decide otherwise, also (for example, deciding upon a lesser form of punishment).

I object to turning any person into a "monster". It obscures the reality that this is absolutely a part of human nature, albeit something of an extreme.

I disagree. It is human nature to err, or think monstrous thoughts and have unexplainable feelings and/or emotions. But to act upon those impulses is not human nature otherwise the constraints humankind puts on its own behavior, and even the laws in place intended to exclude such behavior, would be completely ineffective. And to dilute murder as part of human nature offers an excuse for its perpetration.

Seeing people as "monsters" hinders our ability to engage with and understand them as human beings.

I can concede that some individuals commit heinous crimes against their better judgment and as compulsory actions to obsessive thinking. I do not categorize such individuals as monsters deserving of death, but instead of study and treatment. However, I do believe there are individuals inherently evil and who, in their right minds, commit heinous acts just to do so. Those are the individuals I categorize as monsters.

1 point

No religion can tangibly enforce any ideals on a person. People alone are responsible for war, and it's for as simple a reason as human emotion drives individuals to commit atrocities when another's lifestyles do not correspond accordingly with their own.

1 point

Black market organs are dangerous, obviously. You never really know what you're getting. But there is no shortage of them. Hospitals and doctors put their patients on waiting lists, knowing full well they'll die before they receive the care they need -- it's a money racket.

Ultimately, I think it's the patient's decision. If they're comfortable purchasing organs from the Underground, so be it. As long as the person didn't die specifically to provide said organs, I believe it could actually save more lives than the current system.

1 point

Absolutely not. Why should he expect to have rights as a sperm donor when he stripped the mother of her right to consent? Furthermore, simply because she chose to keep the child does not grant him any leniency or parental rights whatsoever. He traumatized her mentally, and anyone capable of such abuse should not be near children.

1 point

Agreed! That's the point I'd flip out and huddle under the seat. LOL

1 point

Pro-life advocates are so often ignorant when it comes to the natural processes of a woman's body. The female body naturally rejects about 80% of fertilized eggs (read, the female body naturally aborts about 80% fertilized eggs) (sourcex2). So I'd love to see a pro-lifer try to drag Mother Nature into court and call "her" a murderer.

That aside, abortions are a personal decision the mother, and sometimes the father, makes. It's no one's damn business what she decides to do with her body, whether you like it or not. And if you have a problem with your tax dollars going towards the upkeep and operation of abortion clinics, maybe you should either work harder to change the socialist-type economy you live in or consider relocating to an area more suited to your ideals. Because the fact of the matter is, in a country revered (outwardly, anyway) for its individual freedom, you cannot claim to support such an ideology only when it suits your personal beliefs.

1 point

I'd oppose such a bill, as it's no concern of the government, or anyone else, what you do with another person (as long as they're consenting adults).

Just an interesting point of fact, though, in some states, premarital sex is illegal, technically. Of course, it's not enforced and is one of those primitive laws that dates back to the Victorian era that no one really realizes is still on the books.

1 point

If not greater, than at least the same penalty. Simply because in order to coerce someone into suicide, you are, in a sense, torturing that person into action. In the United States, 18 U.S. Code ยง 2340A states that if death results from torture, the perpetrator "shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

1 point

This would obviously be an attack on our right to free speech. If we made everything we didn't like or approve of illegal, we'd all be behind bars.

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

I honestly don't know why they call the concept "windowless" -- makes it sound like the people will be flying through the air with gaping holes next to their seats.

What they're talking about is making the entire fuselage from OLED screens, so passengers can use the body of the airplane to track their flights and project the sky outside.

I don't know how I'd feel about that. O.o

3 points

Wait, I don't get it. If you're a nihilist and believe life is meaningless, and you have no morals, then what is it that keeps you from harming other people? I'm legitimately trying to understand.

1 point

Not yet. But I feel we're on the brink of pushing that limit. To an extent, technology can be beneficial to our lives, and remove from them unnecessary burdens. But humankind tends to become overzealous when it comes to technological advancements, naturally wanting to push the limits of what we can and cannot create. Without realizing it, we will become too dependent upon technology, and may even see artificial intelligence progressing itself beyond humanity's control.

1 point

I believe in the death penalty in a sense, but I do not believe such a sentence should be dealt by a middle man. I believe in a system of mirror punishment, whereby the survivors of the victim should be able to inflict the same punishment on the perpetrator that he/she inflicted on their victim(s). Literally an eye for an eye.

As it stands now, monsters are strapped to tables and put to sleep before slipping painlessly into death. That isn't justice.

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

I've proven already that one of the core principles of feminism is to oppose men (I'll assume you didn't read it). And not once did I say that "all women are feminists." I'm simply stating the obvious -- the feminist movement already insists that women have less rights than men, so were men to pursue masculinism, there would no doubt be an outpouring of feminist outrage.

Now. I'd like to respectfully request that you get another hobby. Following me around and commenting on every single thing I say makes you appear a bit desperate to prove something. ;)

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

Actually, sexual orientation is a protected class under numerous state and even federal jurisdictions.

In some jurisdictions. Sexual orientation isn't uniformly protected in all states, and whether or not it's federally protected is basically irrelevant when the states have the right to either accept or refuse to abide by it. For example, Arizona passed a law in February of this year that would allow religious business owners to refuse service to gay couples as long as they cited their religious beliefs (X). Michigan currently has a bill heading to the Senate that would also protect religious businesses (X).

Notably, even were we having this discussion a decade or two earlier when sexual orientation was not a protected class that alone is an inadequate basis to claim that it ought not to be (blacks used not to be a protected class as well).

Serving a black person doesn't violate one's religious beliefs.

It is a very well established socio-legal reality that discrimination of the sort enacted by these businesses is neither ethically tolerable nor legal.

I beg to differ. The "law" may force Christian-based businesses to serve gay customers, but that law is itself illegal. The first Amendment of the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Whether they are for-profit corporations or small, local businesses should be irrelevant.

Effectively, every argument you have made is consistent with the belief that it is okay to trample some rights in order to protect others. Furthermore, to concede one example should not have been included does not mean it should be excused, nor does it detract from my overall argument -- it still shows how Christian-based businesses are being forced to betray their religious beliefs to serve gay customers.

1 point

It's not the semantics that bothers me. There's no need for feminism in America. Women have the same rights as men. Imagine if masculinism popped up -- how pissed do you image women would be? Feminism would fare better in less socially developed countries. Here, it's just a nuisance.

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

#1,2,5,6, and 7 do not pertain to forcing churches to marry gay couples. They pertain to requiring non-discrimination in service provision.

I didn't specify only Christian churches. If you'll recall, I said, "they shouldn't be able to take legal action against pastors, churches or Christian-based businesses for not catering to them." Refusing to cater to homosexuals does not fall under the discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination for reasons of race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and physical/mental disability. Sex/gender do not protect sexual orientation.

#3 is a pending lawsuit and represents two people, not most homosexuals or most movements.

Not once did I ever say "most homosexuals."

#4 is the exception, not the rule.

This I can concede should not have been included in my list of examples.

Bear in mind throughout this discussion that the very same people who are raising largely false alarms over this matter are the same exact people who used the law to enforce their religious beliefs on the personal lives of others for centuries. The hypocrisy is striking, to say the least.

"The very same people" who? Because I've never forced my religious beliefs on anyone, and I do expect the religious freedoms of others to be respected. These couples could have respected the religious dispositions of these businesses and went somewhere else easily. Instead, they made it a point to spend money to take these hard-working people to court over a difference of beliefs, even putting at least one out of work. There is no excuse for that.

1 point

Consider employment: disproportionate pay, promotions, and even employment offers remain persistent concerns.

The wage gap is yet another myth, debunked by 4 sources (one of them being the US Dept. of Labor) 1 2 3 4.

Oh, and the reason why women sometimes have a hard time acquiring job offers is because they pick Majors with naturally lown pay medians, good ole' sappy shit like "Women's Studies," that always lead to lower-paying jobs than those of men who chose logical, higher-paying Majors.

There remain parts of this world were conditions for women are positively deplorable in terms of equity.

True. And it is in those parts of the world where a degree of feminism actually makes sense. But not here, and here is where my concerns lie.

Those quotes do not prove that anti-male sentiment is necessarily inherent to feminism nor that they predominate.

Alone, no, they do not. But they are supportive evidence of what is widely known about feminism -- and that is that one of its core principles is of opposing the patriarchy, that damnable male authority they feel so smothered by. Of course there in an inherent hatred of men, when most women of the feminist movement feel they're being oppressed by them. Would you love, trust or respect someone you deemed to be essentially your captor? I think not. Sometimes critical thinking is all that is needed to fill in the blanks, my friend.

Prove it, and not with another logical fallacy.

I have proven it, now kindly cease with the fallacy fallacy. ;)

I have no idea why you think these are relevant to the preceding comments.

I was providing an argument and referencing proof to back up those arguments. So I have no idea why you wouldn't think them relevant.

From your first source I was entirely unable to locate exactly where you were pulling the 40% statistic (page citation please?), but found plenty of evidence in the report which indicates that women do experience greater rates of sexual violence than do men and that for both women and men the perpetrators were mostly men. Whatever the exact rates are, that disproportionately remains an evident fact. Thank you for providing evidence that demonstrates my first point in this rebuttal quite well.

Tsk, tsk, I don't think you read everything you say you do. ;) Note that the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (or simply NISVS) doesn't consider it rape when men are forced to have sex with women. On page 84, it states, "Being made to penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is particularly unique to males and, to our knowledge, has not been explicitly measured in previous national studies."

Goodness, did you hear that? What splendid news! For you and all other men -- that apparently, you cannot be raped. Shew, glad we got that out of the way. And here is why you think I've provided evidence to support your argument when it really still supports mine.

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

My "quote pissing" was rather a list of feminist quotes proving a point, evidentiary support, if you will, of my argument.

I have conceded that there are feminists not so monstrous as the others, but as I said before, their list is quite shorter than the list of feminists with victim mentalities.

I feel as if both of you have seriously missed my entire point. Without even getting into the whole tired, drawn-out debate about their beliefs and misdeeds and hypocrisy, the original point I was trying to make with my headline was that if feminists really believed in equality of men and women, would it not make more sense to call themselves human rights activists rather than stick with, and attack people for, a label that singles out men and their rights and lifts up the rights of women as superior?

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

Most homosexuals and most movements have not demanded that Churches (or other religious congregations) marry them against the religious beliefs of that Church/congregation.

#1 These Christian Oregon bakery owners must pay hundreds of thousands for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding -- their children even received death threats and they had to close their shop;

#2 This Colorado man is being sued because he refused to make them a cake for their wedding, even stating that it was because of his Christian beliefs;

#3 Millionaire gay couple are suing to force churches to marry gay couples;

#4 Denmark is forcing churches to marry gay couples;

#5 This New Mexican photography company is being sued for their refusal to work with a gay couple;

#6 This poor bed and breakfast owner (also religious) was sued by a lesbian couple and they won;

#7 This religious florist refused service to a gay couple and was sued and subsequently forced to provide services to gay couples, despite her religious beliefs.

Search Google, I'm sure there are boatloads more. But these despicable human beings are ruining mom-and-pop businesses and shutting down people's livelihoods because they knew the religious affiliations of these owners and insisted on pursuing them anyway.

corpse(49) Clarified
1 point

You are misrepresenting my views. In public places, there is no element of privacy. If you're going to court for jury duty, then you're aware there are cameras, but you haven't a choice really but to comply. That's anywhere you go in public. It's not okay, but there it is.

I can wager with almost 100% certainty that no one in their right mind would concede to have government-implanted cameras in their homes or on their property. And I never insinuated such a ludicrous notion. Maybe I should have stressed the private vs. public angle more, but I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that readers would be able to discern the difference.

When I said, "It is when people are being recorded without their consent, and without knowledge of cameras being present, that said surveillance impedes on our privacy wrongly," I was still talking in terms of public interaction.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

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