- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Discussing which restroom they should be using is a little premature; we should be discussing which mental health institution they should check in to or which psychologist they should be visiting for treatment and therapy.
Living in close proximity to San Francisco I come across more transgendered individuals than one might in other parts of the world, and while I don't hold any animosity towards them, I do wholeheartedly believe they are mentally ill.
People who identify as a gender other than the one defined by objective standards of gender, like chromosomes, hormones, and gentiles, constitute a tiny minority of any population. A minority so tiny it's actually comparable to the number of people who identify as a species other than human, despite all the contrary evidence that they are not, in fact, a horse or a cat or a dragon. There's not a shred of evidence any of these humans are anything but, despite their protests that they feel, "trapped in a human body," coincidentally the exact same protest transgenders make.
If you think that someone who really believes at the core of their being that they are actually a dog and not a human being, and that they want to act out that fantasy by wearing nothing but a collar, barking at things, walking on all fours, and eating kibble, is utterly insane, I agree with you. And I find a transgendered person wanting to take drugs to fuck up their body chemistry, saw off their body parts, and run around in a wig to be equally insane.
Generally I don't have any problem with people doing something crazy so long as it's not a danger to others or themselves. However, transgenders suffer some of the highest suicide rates in the country, before and after any surgery or hormone treatment they undergo. If you care about the quality of life for a transgendered person, then you must agree they need treatment, not to be coddled and told their condition is perfectly acceptable.
I would say it means both a disbelief in religion and a disbelief in the supernatural. Religion is really just a philosophic practice that involves the supernatural. You have to believe in something supernatural to be religious in 99% of cases. Atheism is actively rejecting the potential supernatural element of reality; it follows naturally that any worship, practice, dogma, or religion founded on said rejected supernatural would also be rejected.
Additionally, I dislike the "or a lack of belief" bit of Atheism definitions, since that is the definition of agnosticism, and it's best to avoid redundancy and wasting words.
If you reject all or most of religion/the supernatural, you're an atheist.
If you don't know, are undecided, lack a belief, or haven't thought about it, you're an agnostic.
much of what is achieved is play to circumstance. skin colour is but one of many advantages you may or may not have, but unfortunately it will undeniably affect your life depending on where and in which culture you live in.
Agreed. But it would be pretty rich of me to move to China and whine and whine because all the Chinese people in China (who, you know, speak the language like natives, have a lifelong understanding of the culture, and look, act, and hold beliefs in a similar manner to the vast majority of people in China) have some kind of "undeserved privilege," and are therefore a bunch of oppressive racists who need to "check" themselves.
if you wouldn't mind, what are your views on the legitimacy of stereotypes?
That they're pretty damn legit if you keep in mind that by definition stereotypes are generalizations based on statistics (or maybe just mental analysis of repeated observation), and that while statistics are made up of individuals but individuals are not made up of statistics. To me this means being willing to cross the street to avoid a thugged-out, crip-walking black man coming my way, but, say, not to inquire about a black acquaintance's stolen firearm and gram of crack/cocaine, insisting he must have them, "because black are, of course, all a bunch of criminal drug dealing scum," or something like that.
Rephrased, just because I like metaphors, ignorance is meeting three Americans and remarking to the third one, "on, you're the one with herpes," citing the 1 in 3 American has herpes statistic. But it's not ignorant to wear a condom because 1 in 3 Americans has herpes.
In places like the US where slavery is only 150 years old, it probably does indicate it.
It's a possibility, I'll readily admit, and a certainty in certain cases, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or even a significant subset. I'm sure you'd agree there is a definite glorification of the poverty/crime lifestyle in large swaths of African American culture, perhaps a sway strong enough to persuade a black youth to choose a career path in gang-related drug peddling, for instance, instead of completing his education and getting a real job when the opportunity is available to him.
It might also have to do with the fact that Central and South America used to be populated by "uncivilized" people. It takes a while to catch up.
If by "uncivilized" you mean "not as likely to be competent academics," I agree with you, as was my point. But why were they less civilized, as you put it? Why do they have to catch up? Central and South America weren't colonized predominantly by white people, nor were the residents made to be slaves. Africa had been the cradle of civilization for thousands of years before white people landed on Her shores and started loading up fieldhands. By rights Africa should posses the most advanced civilization (architecture, agriculture, economy, government, social rights, etc) on the planet, since it's been populated the longest. It doesn't. In fact on average Africa is the worst continent on the planet. Again, why is that? Why were they so far behind that they needed catching up in the first place, even before people who look like me started taking advantage?
Many of them are also immigrants from the nation of Japan, not descendants of slaves. There is a fairly large difference between a slave and a temporary enemy of the state.
Where they are actually from is largely irrelevant. Racism is predominantly predicated on appearance, not actual nationality. Someone discriminating against blacks isn't suddenly going to be nice to a black person if he finds out he's an immigrant or a national; the racist hates the black person because he's black.
Regarding the difference, no argument there, and I meant to say as much but accidentally left it out. However, my point was that pretty much every minority group (including non-American white minorities, like the Irish) faced heavy persecution in the US when they first arrived, and then said minorities largely overcame the persecution, integrated, and are now significantly more successful. I agree that slavery is more damaging than internment, but when you factor in the time differences I think it balances out; the internees themselves and their children went on to college and are now running IMB, Google, and Intel in America. No American to African ex-slaves are still alive. The "oppressed" black descendants of slaves are half a dozen or more generation removed from slavery. Hell, they're more American than half the white people in this country, because they've been here longer.
I think the point is that on average, a while male will receive far more opportunities than some random minority. Maybe your specific case is different, but that does not change the average.
You're probably right, but I'm also unique there because I live in a portion of California where whites are a poverty-ridden minority. What it's gone to show me is that yes, when white men are calling the shots, other white men do pretty well. But also that when Chinese men are calling the shots, other Chinese men do pretty well. And that when Hispanic women are calling the shots, Hispanic women do pretty well. I guess what I resent is less the often correct assertion that whites are doing disproportionately well in the US, and more I resent the implication that racism and/or profile-based favoritism are somehow unique to white people, and all other races are only ever victims.
you briefly hinted at poverty being the cause for black aggression, which i agree with, but i feel you underestimate the predicament horrendously and accept it only when in favour of your race
Yes, but black poverty doesn't automatically indicate white oppression. I heard an NPR piece on Hispanics worldwide being behind in education because both past and present Hispanic culture hasn't had a big emphasis on reading and writing in the household. Maybe true, but it goes to show that just because a group of people is behind doesn't mean it has to be because some other group is holding them back, nor does a group require special privilege to do well. Blacks bore the brunt of slavery in the US, but there were just one group in a long line of oppressed minorities, many of whom are now excelling in the United States. Japanese Americans were subject to internment and discrimination in only the last century, but that hasn't stopped them from jumping to the top of several academic and professional fields in this country. As a white male living in the US I've always resented the notion that anything I achieve isn't the result of my hard work or dedication but of a special, unearned advantage inherit to my skin color, and conversely that any lack of achievement or bad behavior from minorities is a direct result of the terrible, ongoing racial oppression all whites are apparently responsible for.
whenever whites find themselves in a position such as some blacks and others are in now they rebel and slaughter, only in history the whites in these scenarios are seen as righteous and just.
Ahh no. The kind of aggression we're talking about is burglary, mugging, assault, gang association, etc., all of it driven by poverty. Shotgun-totting white-trash hicks with prison tattoos selling crank on the street corner are remembered every bit as distastefully as their black counterparts. I agree that history as we know it is a biased account, but that fact isn't relevant here.
in addition to this, there are no world wars worth mentioning amongst blacks whilst whites have caused 2
That's borne of a lack of capability, not a lack of malicious intent. There have been plenty of insane, homicidal warlords in Africa who would have gladly sparked global conflict if only they had the strength to do so. In fact there's probably even more aspiring tyrants in Africa than anywhere else, given the horrific level of violence that has characterized the continent for most of recorded history (that would be before imperialism, colonization, slavery, the Cold War, and all the other world problems that are evidently the inherited sins of young white people like myself who, of course, had jack shit to do with all of that).
I've always interpreted the prefix 'a' like in 'a'theism to mean anti, or against. It seems to me we already have a term for the lack of belief: agnosticism. To be atheist (i.e. anti-theist, against theism) means you have an active belief that god does not exist. If you simply lack a belief on the matter or you are just unsure, I'd call you an agnostic.
On a personal aside, i don't see how anyone could be an atheist on any ground other than a moral rejection of god/religion as a whole (i.e. the Christian god endorses slavery, I'm morally opposed to slavery, therefore I reject god and am an atheist). Most theists claim their god is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless... an invisible man in the sky, if you will. I don't see how you could prove such an entity does not exist anymore that you could prove it does, so it seems to me rather foolish to assert the theist position of 'yes, god exists' as much as it is to claim 'no, he doesnt;' We don't really know.
As a standalone concept, it doesn't. Even if someone kept, say, an objectively filthy and disgusting living room, it's not really anyones business to go and criticize that. It's a little gross, but also totally private.
Religion as we know it, however, doesn't even come close to anything private. Spirituality, maybe. Faith, maybe. But generally religion is a just greedy, capitalistic, extremely public enterprise that peddles faith to make money. And it is my sincere belief that any public company deceives people into trading money (tax free) for eternal salvation (under the threat of eternal damnation) - including people forcibly indoctrinated into this scam as children - deserves ridicule, and for obvious reasons.
It depends on what you mean by "real problem."
If you mean does video game addiction actually exist, yes, it does. It is real. So it tic-tac addiction and reading addiction and CD addiction.
If you're asking if it's a real problem like is it a large enough problem or epidemic to actually merit concern, no, not as a concept. Maybe certain, rare individuals let their lives be driven to shit by video game addiction, but no more than people who do the same cooped up reading books. I think, like texting, it just gets a bit more media attention than, say, chronic tic-tac addicts because it's new.