CreateDebate


Jessald's Waterfall RSS

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

You tell 'em, buddy.

..................................................

1 point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Dairy, eggs, and many, many other alternatives can all be obtained, consumed and digested as easily as meat.

(Insert obvious caveats here.)

1 point

Ok, so for first worlders, like everyone in this debate is.

1 point

Monopoly =/= sole firm of it's kind in the market.

Actually that's exactly what a monopoly is.

That would be a monopsony.

A monopoly is one seller, many buyers. A monopsony is one buyer, many sellers.

kerosene prices dropped from 58 to 26 cents from 1865 to 1870

How is this relevant? Standard Oil wasn't incorporated until 1870.

1 point

We evolved to eat and digest it for a reason.

The reason was that any kind of food was scarce. Now all the nutrients found in meat can easily be obtained from alternative sources, so that reason is no longer valid.

1 point

Yes, a vegetarian diet is the best choice -- assuming "best" accounts for moral superiority.

It is wrong to inflict pain on a sentient being.

1 point

2. They enact monopoly rates, driving away customers and propping up smaller firms which will under sell them. So, still no problem.

Your example posits an incumbent natural monopoly. How are smaller firms supposed to come into being in such a scenario?

And even if you can somehow conjure up this competitor, what's to keep the incumbent from temporarily selling at below market rates, just until the competitor goes out of business, as Standard Oil notoriously did?

1 point

Pretty sure if it were that easy, we would already be doing what you suggest.

1 point

What animated guide? Did you mean to include a link?

From what I've heard, the "currency wars" are not really that big of a deal.

1 point

It can be fun sometimes. It allows for an alternative means of expression.

but u have to know the right time and place lol

2 points

I think this is mostly a good argument, but I have some problems with it.

First, I'm not clear on what exactly you want to achieve. Do you want to turn Iran et al into western-like countries? I agree that this would be a good thing, but pursuing this goal strikes me as a huge overreach. Cultural imperialism is distasteful. And in any case, I don't think "laughing at them" is going to be at all effective in achieving this goal.

I think we should be focused on the much narrower problem of Islamic terrorism. Here it's not the entire religion we're targeting, but rather Al Queda and similar organizations. I think the US is already doing a decent job of pursuing this goal. Disrupting terrorism while supporting acceptable governments is the best course of action.

Getting Israel to stop being so belligerent would also help ease tensions.

1 point

Right, the twins could be considered good guys, but they were the exception. The majority of the kids eventually went along with Jack. Not all people are evil, just most.

And I never said desire as a whole was evil.

1 point

Not all desires are evil, but some clearly are. Eating Starburst is not evil, but killing people is. If you desire murder, then that is clearly an evil desire. If you act on that desire you are ignoring reason and committing an evil act.

It seems like you are making excuses for these children. Murder is wrong; it doesn't take a genius to realize that. The kids knew they were wrong, yet they did it anyway.

Desire over reason is evil if what you desire is evil.

2 points

Presenting yourself with flair. An attempt to signal coolness.

1 point

I guess it depends on the person -- and the dream.

In my experience the raisin in the sun thing is the most common. People just give up and settle for less.

If you have an extremely willful person, exploding is definitely a possibility. These people will get what they want or die trying. On one hand this is admirable. Fighting to change the world is hard and risky and thus takes courage and strength. Sometimes walls need to be busted down. On the other hand, fighting often carries a price. Innocents can be harmed and society's stability can be threatened.

So I guess people who have their dreams deferred have to make a pretty hard choice. Give up or fight. I'd say the other possibilities mentioned in the poem are intermediate states -- reflecting the turmoil one feels in making this choice.

1 point

Yes, by most metrics. Quality of life, the economy, government -- all of these things have improved drastically throughout human history.

0 points

following desire over reason is not evil.

No? Then what is evil? If someone does something bad, does that not mean they're following desire over reason?

Regardless of whether the evil men do is born of fear or impatience or whatever, the fact remains that they do it.

1 point

If man is not evil, then why does the public pay so much more attention to the one advocating desires than the one advocating reason? Why do the younger kids blindly follow Jack instead of blindly following Ralph? You mentioned the media, but the media is only giving people what they want. The media wouldn't succeed in promoting violence unless that's what the public wanted to see.

1 point

There was a time when I would've disagreed with the message of this book. But slowly I'm beginning to accept it. I find that as my opinion of humanity gets lower and lower the world starts making more and more sense.

This book shows just how important government is in keeping our darker impulses from tearing apart everything we care about.

1 point

Can't sell the milk if you're giving away the cow for free.

...or something like that.

3 points

Sigh... downvote.

...wait a second...

Hahaha. Well done, sir.

1 point

I'd say Libertarian. With a heavy dose of social darwinism.

But really, who cares? Labels are for groceries.

2 points

Haha, I agree. I remember one of my English teachers going on and on about whether Hamlet getting kidnapped by pirates was a desperate attempt to tie up an unraveling storyline. I mean really, who gives a shit?

1 point

It remains a fact, however, that it was the most popular theory among scientists before it was verified.

Ok, but aliens on Earth is not very popular among scientists.

All science should be cautious and sceptical.

Sure, but one ought to be especially vigilant when it comes to certain areas. One should be aware of their surroundings at all times, but doubly so when crossing a busy street.

You misunderstand. First of all, the possibility of distinguishing a vessel from a piece of interplanetary debris is slim...

Huh? Why are you talking about aliens in space? This debate is about aliens on Earth.

Consider that I have not stated the claims to be true. I have simply avoided making assumptions, as you would do if you truly wished to observe scientific protocol.

So you've staked out the bold position that you can't prove a negative. Such courage!

Do you think that aliens on Earth is likely? And if not then why are we arguing?

As aforesaid, the numbers would be rather low, but as I am certain you know, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding several incidents.

I know of no such controversy. My research in this area has consisted of reading the introduction to the UFO article on Wikipedia and concluding that there is no reasonable evidence here. Just of a bunch of sci-fi nerds who "Want to Believe".

Why would they have to abandon it? Faking results would be more efficient.

Ok, it still seems unlikely that they would manage to suppress the innate desire so often found among scientists to explain the world.

Likelihood is not an adequate basis upon which to draw a conclusion.

In the real-world just about all conclusions are probabilistic and based on likelihoods.


2 of 80 Pages: << Prev Next >>

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