CreateDebate


Sayyad99's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Sayyad99's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history. Lets assume that terrorists have abused the Islamic symbol that represents their religion which is also ancient by bombing down towers and buildings ending in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness? While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion. The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.

And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word. I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all. If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.

1 point

This symbol is not a hate symbol hence it is protected by the 1st amendment. There are indeed other limitations on freedom of speech. This symbol does not qualified to be included in those limitations.

1 point

And if you read my prior arguments, a person with logic would know I was referring to the specified period of time.

1 point

You seem to forget that all these women were charged because they failed to performed their abortions within the specified period of time before it attains personhood. And so goes for the rest of your list as well.

1 point

To begin with, a mother cannot be charged even if she performs an abortion on herself. Various means of abortion includes using abortion pills and morning after pills which would require the mother to ingest the pill so yes through this process she is performing it on herself. No where in the laws define this as a crime.

Would you agree that murder is the intentional and unjustifiable taking of one human life by another?

1 point

Why would consent only be relevant to abortion when the statute you quoted relates to the absence of the mother's consent as it relates to homicides?

1 point

And if consent is not given then it becomes murder. Isn't that why this statute was created?

Lastly, I fail to see your argument because if lets assume that the fetus was a child, this clause was passed so that it may be applied to situations in which consent of the mother was not given. That is, if the life of the fetus is taken at any stage by another person without the consent of the mother. It does not address the issue of whether or not the fetus is a person. It only addresses the issue of scenarios where consent of the mother is not given. This clause addresses consent, not the question of personhood.

1 point

Yet again, you fail to realize the core of my arguments. CONSENT WAS NEVER GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO TAKE THE LIFE OF THE FETUS SO HENCE THE ACT ITSELF IS A CRIME BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTHER HAS THAT RIGHT. Secondly, those articles failed to mention what stages the fetus were at the time of their deaths.

1 point

Again, I fail to see a substantive argument. Only the mother has the right to terminate the life of her fetus. No one else has that right so you actually did me the favor of proving my previous arguments. In all those cases you mention, the life of the fetus was taken A) during the commission of a homicide to the mother and B) without the consent of the mother outside the scope of abortion.

Lastly, what legal definition are you referring to? Because if that was the case then abortion would be a crime and it is not.

1 point

I assume those laws you refer to are relevant to cases of double homicides where both the fetus and the mother is killed. This is a different situation because consent was never taken from the mother to engage in such action. You fail to grasp my point. My argument was not that the fetal stage is not entitled to rights but rather that there is certain period during which rights are entitled. Even the U.S Supreme Court has argued, using medical facts that the fetus is not a person unless it reaches a certain point. Science would describe the fetus as a mass of cells undergoing development but which has not attained the stage of personhood.

1 point

But you are assuming that every reward will be a material. Words of encouragement and exposure to the community can cause the student to become a role model for other students. Such status is obtained as a reward for gaining outstanding accomplishment. This in turn, will motivate other students to work harder. Even in the work place and in society, employees and citizens are rewarded for good behavior in several ways. In teaching these students about rewards and motivating them to excel, we are also creating a more competitive society where competition and rewards are key factors of financial success.

4 points

A fetus has not attained personhood so no they not not have rights under the constitution unless the fetus develops past a certain period.

1 point

I argued that most people who commit gruesome crimes are psychopaths because statistics and science have shown there is a strong criminological correlation between the two concepts. At no point did I use the term, "all." You have no qualifications within criminology nor have you been put to death row so how can you argue that death row affects freedom of guilt when in fact, science has shown that there is no guilt as it relates to psychopathy. Even if I am not a psychopath, I have studied and analyzed criminal behavior and patterns as it relates to gruesome crimes. And based on previous patterns of criminal behavior and gruesome crimes, psychology would argue that it is a strong possibility in the face of fact unless you can prove otherwise.

1 point

And how would you know this for a fact? What if through death the criminal is still not able to get rid of his guilt because he is a psychopath and psychopaths feels no emotion nor guilt. Rather their execution is enforced as a safeguard against society and even other inmates. You have never committed a crime nor have you been put on death row so how can you argue that it gets rid of all guilt when most people who commit gruesome murders are actually psychopaths who feels no emotion nor guilt.

1 point

Nothing about death is a gift. We live in a democratic society where the principles of the constitution must be reflected within our legal system and its philosophies. Torturing people and forcing them to suffer, regardless of the crimes they committed is a reflection of the many unfair practices within previous society. If as a nation, we argue that life is sacred and that it must be treated with respect, then that applies to all categories of people regardless of their actions.

1 point

But who is saying anything about the worth of life? Torture does not have to involve death. It can be used in a manner that allows for the retrieval of information. And to further expand on your statements, the safety of a thousand lives is powerful enough to outweigh the life of one person who is terrorist and is willing to die anyways. Its the power of a thousand lives when compared to the power of one life who is willing to die. What if a thousand children are left orphans on that day? How would you feel if you were the officer that allowed this to happened had it occurred?

1 point

I was referring to people with authority such as medical examiners or qualified medical professionals. By legal actions, I would argue that assisted suicides should be permissible only upon applying for a court order to terminate life. In such cases, assisted suicide will only be allowed to take place upon the permission of the court which has the power and authority to carefully examine the circumstances relating to that person. I beg to differ that there is no way a court would allow an innocent person to die. Many people who are brain dead are not necessarily dead and there may be a slight chance of approval but yet courts have granted approval by means of court orders to terminate the life of that person.

Are you referring to Oscar Pistorious? Because if you are, that case is still in trial and the defendant has not been found guilty. Witnesses are currently being cross examined so I believe your facts might not be accurate. But lets set aside the example you used and lets assume that he was found guilty indeed. Psychology still plays a role in EVERY case and plays a powerful role in bringing the defendant to justice. Psychology involves the manner in which the judge, prosecutors and members of the jury view the facts and evidence of the case and their interpretation of the circumstances which they may relate to their own personal experiences or values. Without forensic technology, society would be crowded with criminals and dangerous offenders. It is science that helps to determine whether a person die by murder or other suspicious means so yes science plays a powerful role also in bringing an offender to justice. Psychology has to be backed by scientific data before it can even be allowed in the courtroom or it becomes unsupported facts which are often instructed by the judge to be disregarded. Our court system has failed in the past but it does not mean we have to let the past affect the present and the future when our constitution constantly evolves.

1 point

But in order for persons with authority to assist in suicides, the law needs to permit assisted suicides thus legalizing it anyways. Don't you think that the law would outline what elements needs to be present when determining if the act itself was an assisted suicide? Take for example, rape is a crime of forced sexual intercourse but yet while many often argue that it was consensual, science and developments in forensic technology and psychology have helped in solving many extraordinary cases and continues to do so.

1 point

So what about this act makes it a crime? How is this act different from a justifiable killing?

sayyad99(773) Clarified
1 point

Yes. What do you think about the question now that it has been clarified?

sayyad99(773) Clarified
1 point

Assuming that assisted suicide was a crime and you lend someone your gun for the purposes of hunting or passed a note to his or her mom without knowing the contents of such note does not mean you can be charged with the crime of assisted suicide because in order for there to be a crime of assisted suicide, there must be two elements present. These elements are known as 'mens rea' and 'actus reus.' The mens rea basically states that the person has to possess the mental intent to commit the crime knowingly and voluntarily.

1 point

Tax payers pay money towards the maintenance of prisons and that also harms the economy so is it logical to say we should eliminate funding towards prisons then? Because without welfare programs, the prison population will double or triple as we are already seeing.

1 point

I agree that this country was founded on individuality as it relates to decision making but there is an extent to which that decision making is allowed. I agree that welfare programs' money comes from taxes but such spending is allocated towards programs which have been proven to benefit society in the deviance, economic and educational sectors. You are arguing that spending should be allocated towards the military when in fact, reports show that in 2011, 20% of the budget equivalent to 718 billion USD was allocated towards the military and other international security defense measures. There needs to be a balance within society where the different sectors are financially funded accordingly or else the social issues that will be created can create havoc within society thus increasing more government spending than would be required to spend on welfare programs.

Also, no one is supporting or paying for poor people. The taxes you pay is actually an investment into your own future in cases of old age or disability. No one on welfare is taking away that benefit from you because in the end, you will still enjoy the benefits of your payment. You seem to think that tax spending goes towards welfare programs when in fact, the larger amount of that goes towards so many sectors. Societal balance should involve adequate consideration to all sectors because as a nation we strive for economic development and welfare programs provides the stepping stone for such accomplishment. Maybe it does not work for all but it works for most.

1 point

But won't you agree that taking steps to retrieve information when the lives of thousands are in danger is better than doing nothing even when it involves torture? How do you weigh the life and well-being of one terrorist against a thousand innocent lives? Where is the balance? Where is the duty to protect society against evil and wrong-doing?

1 point

They will win especially when the defense of marriage act is discriminatory in that it defines marriage based on one's sexual orientation. If sex between two people of same sexes is not a crime, then why is same sex marriage illegal? And how does this violate the equal application of all laws?

1 point

I disagree with your argument. The media has highlighted many cases of bullying that became criminal in nature thus exposing this issue among the general population. Also, the issue of bullying and its consequences are often discussed in schools, on internet, at work places, etc. Blaming immaturity or lack of understanding is not enough to excuse criminal behavior that may result in the death of another.

2 points

Yes! Bullies who are involved in bullying others should be punished severely by the law. Many seem to be under the common perception that they can violate the rights and privacy of another and be treated favorably by the law. And we have seen it happened where victims of bullying has committed suicides while their alleged perpetrators enjoy the protection of the law and due process. If laws fail to provide deterrence, then what good is that piece of law when it is looked at with fear by perpetrators? What good is law that fails to preserve the safety of the helpless ones?

1 point

I think prostitution should be regulated as a business sector and should be legalized. The spread of diseases and increase in abuses of prostitutes without regulation of the government can be damaging to society. Besides, prostitutes are often victims of crimes and treated as criminals at the same time. If the government cannot provide proper and stable employment alternatives, then it becomes the responsibility of these individuals to provide for their families. Also, pornography is considered legal even though money is involved for the act of sex so why can't the same logic be applied to prostitution? Why should the government be able to control my body if the act itself is mutual among two people?

1 point

The right to own guns was created so it could apply during the times of war when every male civilian could have been drafted to serve in the war. So yes, the military is excluded from this group because the amendment was created to preserve the ability of the military. And you are right. The black market will always exist but let me ask you another question. Should we allow rapists to continue raping simply because they will do it anyways? If you are suggesting that we should not place stricter laws on gun possession simply because it will still take place through the black market, then you reason is flawed for a surety.

1 point

Yes there should be. There should be laws allowing for a psychological examination of the person who is applying for firearm possession because many of the heinous crimes committed by firearm owners are committed by mentally disturbed people.

1 point

I believe that would be a violation of the 8th amendment to the U.S Constitution and various underlying principles of applying punishment in a swift manner.

0 points

Do you see a difference between someone who kills another civilian for their selfish greed and blatant violation of law from the state that executes someone for the greater good of the people they serve?

2 points

No we should not ban dangerous objects just because it has the potential to be dangerous because in actuality anything can be dangerous. Guns are more dangerous because it is capable of causing mass murders within minutes and it seems that killers prefer to use guns in the execution of their plans. Guns are also the most focused weapons in the black market making it a more dangerous threat than other threats.

1 point

So lets say a terrorist planted a bomb in an unknown location and it is likely that the explosion of such bomb will involve thousands of deaths. You as a police officer is interrogating the suspect who refuses to give you information and he is your only source of information. Would you resort to torture to save the lives of thousands and possibly millions?

2 points

Thank you. For me, a discussion should be a learning experience for both parties. My discussion with you has been a valuable and a learning experience.

sayyad99(773) Clarified
3 points

I actually agree with you. I think if welfare programs are combined with self-advancement and empowerment programs, it helps equip beneficients with the tools they need to improve themselves economically which in turn can create an economically beneficial cycle that is passed on from one generation to the next. This will also help to ensure there is an increased level of accountability within the system. The implementation of these programs should involved various dialogues shared among governments, communities, leaders, sociologists, NGOs as you mentioned and careful analysis of the failures and successes of previous systems and protocols relating to these programs.

Like you, I think the welfare program should be modified but not eliminated because it impacts every sector of society. Without any welfare program, the prison population increases which increases government spending towards the maintenance of prisons and jails, increased health diseases due to lack of medications and nutrition thus also increasing healthcare spending. Unfortunately, welfare programs are often view through political lens by people who barely have any understanding of such system.

1 point

The constitution is a living document so it is always being interpreted and the difference is certainly apparent in society which is reflective of many significant caselaws including Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade. Being equal does not mean you give everyone the same punishment because then you violate the proportionality of punishment clause of the 8th amendment. Different situations call for different responses which is typical of a democratic society. Science has clearly proved that the child is not mentally developed so I would argue the issue of proving the mental competence of the child is already addressed and solved unless you can prove otherwise.

1 point

The question is not whether they understand law but rather, do they understand law, emotion and nature in the same way that an adult would understand these? Trauma can be psychologically damaging so it depends to what degree and whether that would severely affect the ability of the person to comprehend the nature of their action. Isn't our constitution based on mental awareness to comprehend the nature of the crime itself and the criminal justice system? Even if a child understands the difference between right and wrong, do they understand it in complex ways that the law views it? I doubt not. Faking insanity and immaturity often takes place with adults, not children as previous case patterns have shown. Even if you can show that these children carefully planned to execute their crimes, how can you show that they were acting based on their perception of reality or a "made-up world" of delusions. Actually, we are not excusing anyone so I have no idea what you are referring to. They will still be answerable to the jurisdiction of the family court with a combined rehabilitative and punitive approach. And oh yes, being equal is about giving fair consideration to certain groups based on strong evidence. Faking immaturity and insanity are often detected via several law enforcement and forensic psychological testings designed to detect malingering which is significant among adults.

1 point

Even though there might be 12 year olds that are known for developing faster than other children from that age group, science has shown that it is still not possible for a 12 year old to fully mentally at that age nor do they possess the mental capabilities as that of an adult. Being incredible does not have to mean that you are mentally complete with compared to adults.

3 points

I am sorry. I believe you meant to respond to markmcd9929 but you accidentally responded to my argument. That user outlined the points you are referring to which I offer rebuttal points as well. I sincerely apologize for the confusion but I am on your side so my bad.

3 points

How does me requesting statistics from you in support of your argument makes me a recruiter? Do you even understand the nature of my argument? The standards of the army is irrelevant when compared to the standards of society and welfare programs. And joining the army is not plain black and white as you may see it.

1 point

While I sincerely respect and value your opinion, I would argue that the centralization of power to a single global body of authority is incompatible because each country has a unique make up that is distinct from other countries. Also, the centralization of power leads to more destruction on a global basis. The root of global corruption stems from the centralization of power and authority. Governments must be created from among the people. People need a government who understands their needs instead of a foreign body that fails to understand the structure and needs of their country. Independence was gained from struggles and sacrifices. Placing our government in the hands of a centralized global body is similar to giving away the independence our ancestors so fought for.

1 point

I disputed your example because medical facts and science have shown that even at 12, a child can lack the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of their actions. A depressed adult is different from a depressed 16 or 12 year old because the depressed adult still understands the nature and processes of the criminal justice system and hence, should be treated differently.

0 points

Do you even have any facts or statistics to support your argument other than your own blind perception?

1 point

However, the original premise of your argument was based on a 12 year old. Also, because the thinking patterns of someone changes as they become older does not mean they have become fully mentally developed given the fact that many teenagers are affected by psychological disorders such as depression that affects their mental judgement.

2 points

While I respect your opinion, I believe that the crime should fit the mental capacity of the person. Hence, one cannot argue that the mental development of the child or adolescent is equivalent to that of an adult. We have to take into consideration the several factors that can affect teenagers and children as they develop including abuse, peer pressure, etc. The nature of the crime should be evaluated depending on the context in which it was committed and the underlying reasons.

1 point

Welfare programs are a necessity depending on the context of the situation. Let's not forget there are single parent families who struggle to prepare their meals every day while they try their best to find employment and provide for their families. For these people, these programs are necessary to prevent them from being homeless or going by without a meal. I believe your definition of necessity is quite different from how the affected person would define such a concept.

1 point

I am assuming by lazy people, you are referring to everyone on the program with absolute certainty. Such a broad and unsupported generalization. Don't you think?


1 of 11 Pages: Next >>

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