CreateDebate


Tallblondguy's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Tallblondguy's arguments, looking across every debate.
3 points

So should cooking, and credit (i.e. how credit works, etc), and the arts and humanities, and world religions, and world cultures, and extensive government classes.

But you can't require everything. Why not let people choose what they think is important?

Also, my PE class was very little working out and a lot of playing baseball, basketball, volleyball, etc. If PE was cardio, weights and physical fitness it would be a lot more useful imo.

Let me spell it out for you then, and I'll use very short sentences to make it easier:

He thinks Obama was only voted in because he was black.

You think the poster is white.

Because you assume he's white and he doesn't like someone who happens to be black, you called him a racist.

You made a decision based completely on race.

You appear to be a racist.

0 points

Everyone that is not hurting anyone else has the right to pursue their goals in life, and the things that make them happy.

Says who? There is no written protection anywhere in the constitution saying so. It can be inferred, perhaps, but it is not a guaranteed right. As such, the majority can vote on this issue any way they like until the constitution is changed in a legal fashion (i.e. the legislative branch).

Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date?

I do and so does a lot of other people

So? Who are you? Who are they? I can find just as many people (more probably) who disagree with you. Who says your morals are better than theirs?

a freedom granted that they respect other peoples rights and freedoms as well, including those of homosexuals to get married in a civil ceremony,

Again, says who? All of these rights and guaranteed freedoms are nice to talk about, but they just don't exist.

it becomes so when you go out of your way to label and abuse Gay people.

Yes. This is actually what I mean when I said the argument had degraded. The descent into name calling was very immature. Most of my very best friends are gay and I take real offense to comments like these.

Are you seriously equating murder with homosexuality?

No, I'm using the logic of something you believe to be wrong to show you how religious people feel. Did you know that many religions believe homosexual acts are only one step down from murder? Many religions believe God destroys whole cities if they permit homosexuality. But more importantly, this is an attempt to put you in their shoes and show one reason why they have a right to vote to make homosexual marriage illegal.

it is not the right of the religious to force their opinions on any one especially when it has nothing to do with religion.

They have a right to vote their conscious, and it has everything to do with religion. Do you have a right to force your morality on them and have their tax dollars support something they find to be a crime next to murder?

3 points

And yet in science it is freely stated that nothing can be proven completely. They used to believe the world was flat. They once said that everything that could be invented had been. Science is no more "proven" than religion.

2 points

I use the term "arguing" liberally here, this discussion fell apart a long time ago :)

But because of some all too conservative people, the rights of two people to be happy

Where do we have a right to be happy? I'm only happy if I'm not poor. Does that mean I have a right to money because it makes me happy?

are denied based on out-dated texts and bigoted moral judgments

Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date? If person x believes God says gay sex is wrong, why would that change over any number of years? Your dispute is that you don't believe God says that, but doesn't everyone have a right to religious freedom?

And is it bigoted to say being gay is bad? If you believe fornication (sex out of marriage) is wrong, you believe that in all cases. If you believe gay sex is wrong you believe that in all cases. Does that make someone a bigot? I'd be willing to believe you think murder is wrong in all cases, does that make you a bigot?

You are both arguing two separate points because you have two different life views. While one of you is probably right, it does not necessarily mean that the other is stupid or bigoted to believe in something different.

3 points

:) I think you mean exceptions. Acceptions would imply something completely different :)

2 points

No one is telling anyone who they can love, we're talking about who they can marry, something very different. Unfortunately the burden of proof is not on the so-called "bigots" you mention (who just believe something different than you. If you believe everyone who believes different than you is a bigot, you might be surprised to discover that you have become one as well). Marriage is only currently legal between a man and a woman. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right that gives anyone otherwise. So in order to change it, you must pass a law democratically. If you can't do that you are free to try and persuade people why they should change their minds, but the burden of proof is on you.

2 points

Where is discrimination not allowed? People are legally discriminated against all the time. Where is marriage a right? This is a very slippery slope. If the majority can be circumvented anytime someone says it's the "right" thing to do, we are not living in a democracy, we are living in a dictatorship.

We live in a constitutional govt where the constitution shows what the majority can and cannot do and what is legally "right". Show me in the constitution where marriage is a right (or more appropriately, where we have the right to marry whomever we want) and I will concede your argument.

Congratulations, once again you have a post that says nothing. "I don't have to say anything because it's obvious."

The irony is the only one who hasn't written anything coherent so far is you. If you have something to say, say it, but your "I don't have to debate because the answer is obvious from your posts" remarks are literally a waste of space and have no room on a debate page.

Learn to express yourself before you call other people incoherent...

Posts like this are useless and inflammatory. A useful post would be something like "is liberalism bad" or something similar. This is just meant to make people mad.

0 points

This is the second post in a row where you have said nothing except: "you're stupid."

If you have something to contribute to the discussion, do it. Otherwise don't clog up the board with flames.

People also generalize to express anger:

I feel strong about x. You disagree with me and thus you are a heartless y.

All emotion, no logic. I wish they still required logic to be taught in school...

-1 points

You make two assumptions that are incorrect or at least up for grabs:

1) that the fetus is part of the mother's body. The fetus does, in fact, use the mother's body and cannot survive without it until a certain time, but it is never actually a part of the mother's body. It is always a separate entity. In fact, if anything the fetus could be considered a parasite :)

2) that denying abortions to these women takes away a woman's right to choose. She had the choice to have sex, and still has the choice to give the baby up. I also don't believe that there is a guaranteed "right" to choose to be (or not be) pregnant. Maybe I missed this in the constitution :P

The biggest problem with pluralism is that it bypasses the crux of the argument: is the fetus a living human and, if so, when?

If it is, any abortion after the fetus is considered human is murder and very few choices are more important than a human life (and point two above shows that the woman did have choices, and sex has risks). If it is not, than abortion is just eliminating a parasite in the body.

(on a side note for reference, I am mixed on this, as I believe the fetus is a human, but not right at conception. I support abortion in its early stages, but feel it should be saved as a last alternative in extreme cases)

4 points

as opposed to Nationalism, which has never been used to manipulate people....

Unless the rules of heaven and hell also govern God. Maybe there are divine laws he can't circumvent. Maybe if you do x he must put you in hell. Maybe he's only God because he obeys these laws (i.e. God cannot be God if he is evil). If person x shoots person y and kills him and then God says to person x it's ok, come to heaven, person y was denied justice, and God is supposedly just.

Does marriage have a religious origin?

No. Marriage has always been a state institution, always requiring the recognition of the state regardless of what ritual religious or secular is attached to it.

I don't have an information to back me up here, but I find this statement highly dubious. For one thing, in much of recent history (up until the last century or so) church and state have been identical in many countries. Certainly now marriage must require the recognition of the state, but you would really have to show me some info to prove it's always been that way. Anytime you use the word "always" you had better have some damned good data to back you up.

2 points

This is well put together and I concede this point. These are good reasons to vote to legalize it.

This is really well written. The problem with Obama is that he's also a bad liberal. Even the health care bill accomplished almost nothing the democratic party wanted and mostly played into the pocketbooks of the Insurance company, who will now get more business and have an excuse to charge what they want. To be fair, the republicans in Congress have dug in their heels and refuse to do almost anything, but they're only getting away with it because of Obama and the dems in Congress inability to either work together and use their super majority or approach the republicans in a way to make things work.

This was the dems opportunity for a golden age of several years of dem control. Instead, they will probably lose everything in the next two elections.

0 points

Just another excuse for this government to grab power. This reform does not hurt wall street. It creates a permanent TARP fund, extending the promise of a pre-paid bailout to whoever wants it. This is why wall street is for the bill. Look past the smoke screen. All politicians are in the pockets of big money, not just republicans.

Also, why does nobody remember we are in this mess because of high risk loans, most of which were required by the govt. Fannie and Freddie are almost never brought up anymore, as the media has put an incredible spin on the recession blaming it on deregulation, allowing them to grab even more power.

3 points

The bad thing about health care is that it is completely unpaid for. The CBO has now scored it at over $1 trillion in deficit spending. The few ways they planned to pay for it (reducing doctor fees for example) have mostly been removed already. The ones left are things like taxes for Cadillac plans on businesses. The companies with plans like this are dropping these plans to avoid the taxes, drying up still another form of payment. The few that are holding on to it will raise their prices on products, meaning ultimately it is the consumer who will pay for it. Premiums are already rising to cover the high risk pools. Finally, this takes away your freedom to choose. you are no longer free to chose not to buy health insurance. I have mixed feelings about this, but it certainly isn't something we should have decided lightly, let alone in bribery infested back room deals.

Oh, and finally a lot of this must be paid by the states in a few years, at a time when state budgets are literally falling apart.

And, in fact, they are extending the TARP funds indefinitely with the new wall street bill. They advertise this as cracking down on Wall Street, but it really means that there will be a permanent bailout fund, something Wall Street loves.

Also, you said when we gave it up it was no longer the tax payer's money. That is terrifying. It was always our money. It is still our money. If any corporation misappropriated money the way our federal govt does they would go to jail so fast it isn't even funny.

but a divorced, widowed, or adopted family is not as strong as a traditional home. This is just the way it is, however unfair. Children from these families are more likely to struggle.

Unfortunately, the govt job isn't to make sure everyone is treated fairly. This would be an impossible and expensive task (this is where we probably will disagree if you don't believe in very limited constitutional govt, which very few people believe in anymore). Besides, right now marriage IS equal: everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. If we want to give people the right to marry members of the same sex, then let's do it, but this is, in fact, a change.

Before you call bigot, I am, in fact, not very religious and literally DON'T CARE if gays marry. It doesn't affect my life at all. I have two friends, a gay couple, who would make a perfect marriage. I just think people need to step away from their high emotions and look at this issue from the larger perspective. Also, everyone has a right to their own opinion and religion isn't bigotry. Even though I don't agree, if you don't want to vote for gay marriage because it's against your religion, congratulations, you have that right. In fact, this right actually IS a right, whereas marriage is nowhere in the constitution and not guaranteed to anyone. Don't like it? Change it! That is your right!

0 points

I'm sorry, your facts are almost all completely made up, and it is you, sir who are living in a land of delusions. I would respond to you point by point, but I attempted that and it's clearly not worth the effort. Every word you say is just reiterated talking points from the democratic party. I don't think Bush was all that, he did some terrible things. I think the republicans do some terrible things. I can't believe how blindly you are following not just one party, but one man. Turn off the internet, turn off cnn, start doing some real research and open your mind, you'll find that both political parties and all politicians are corrupt.


1 of 4 Pages: Next >>

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