- 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.
Lol. It's you're. Your is the possessive pronoun.
"Ooh, look at me, I'm a grammar nazi now." Dude, whatever. Is that the best you got? Correcting me on a typo? Okay.
I don't have anything against you personally, but yes, I find it stupid that you write 15,000 word essays of outrageous, self-contradictory nonsense, without first grasping the basics of what you are trying to have a discussion about.
HA! As if I have actually done that. You claiming it does not make it so, right? Anything that I have posted as an argument, was not disproven. You just claim "Non-sense!" and follow it up with insults.
Most of what I wrote in response to you and your buddy Jody, is lengthy because both of yours were long to begin with. I was responding point by point, but that is okay. I am pretty much done with the both of you.
I pointed them out and you ignored them , that’s what you do you ignore every counter to your arguments
I refuted what you had said with valid points. The experiment, while having an ethical framework that is questioned, had good data that illustrated there are those who are willing to obey authority, while ignoring what their own conscience tells them.
No you showed nothing , the people were told constantly they had to do it and it was a great thing they were doing for science they could not see the subjects face either , Milgram was only interested in fame and fortune
That just made my point. They were told, constantly because they did not want to go on, but continued anyways, with the say so of the "authority" over the experiment. Milgram's motives have been called into question over the years, but this does not disprove the results.
You keep assuming because you say something it’s true , the reverse being the case as you refuse to investigate the matter
I have investigated it. Years ago and now. I suppose you'll tell me that the Stanford Experiment was false, as well.
You did “research “ to confirm your findings not to falsify them making your research utterly useless.
Oh, bullshit. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
So far, you haven't provided any links to your own sources.
I asked if the ones giving the shock would also pull out toe nails with a pliers and you said “yes and this experiment proves it “ this clearly demonstrates you’re totally biased and not interested in anything that doesn’t support your narritive
I said that I would hope they would not do it, but that it would likely be the same amount as the original scenario. I did not say that this experiment proves it. "Likely" being the key word.
Yet I keep doing it and you’re not listening
You've, actually, made my points for me. It still illustrates the points I have already spoken of. Yet, you aren't listening because your mind is made up that the whole thing is useless.
Ha, ha , when I was 17 I went on a one day course for an Army training day which was used to determine whether one wished to join the military , it went pretty well until four hours in a commanding officer threw his boots at me and roared “ clean these boots boy “ .....I said “ clean your own fucking boots you toad faced fuck “ ........I found myself outside the main gates and told to fuck off and never show my face again ......so there’s your answer
Ah, well, good for you. But you did not answer my second question, "How many do you think would?"
Do a bit of research you clown before you post up another pile of bullshit because you have do none such is your school girl crush mentality towards Milgram
Bullshit coming from you some more. I swear, you're a rock, but one that talks back.
“There’s a lot of dirty laundry in those archives,” said Arthur Miller, a professor emeritus of psychology at Miami University and another co-editor of the Journal of Social Issues. “Critics of Milgram seem to want to—and do—find material in these archives that makes Milgram look bad or unethical or, in some cases, a liar.”
One of the most vocal of those critics is Australian author and psychologist Gina Perry, who documented her experience tracking down Milgram’s research participants in her 2013 book Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. Her project began as an effort to write about the experiments from the perspective of the participants—but when she went back through the archives to confirm some of their stories, she said, she found some glaring issues with Milgram’s data. Among her accusations: that the supervisors went off script in their prods to the teachers, that some of the volunteers were aware that the setup was a hoax, and that others weren’t debriefed on the whole thing until months later. “My main issue is that methodologically, there have been so many problems with Milgram’s research that we have to start re-examining the textbook descriptions of the research,” she said.
There have been similar experiments done that coincide with Milgram's and they get similar results. His critics might have him on some ethical things, but it does not disprove the FACT that there are those who will obey "authority", even against their own Conscience, Judgement, Moral code or compass, Intuition, what-have-you. That internal voice that says "Stop doing this!"
Hitler didn't disarm the Jewish population. The Jewish population was already unarmed because the Weimar Republic had outright banned guns throughout Germany. Hitler changed the law to permit private citizens to own guns, but he excluded Jews and opposition groups.
Actually, according to the link provided, The Weimar Republic still allowed, with weapons permits, "authorized persons" to have firearms. The Legal foundation to disarm the Jews, was laid down by the Republic and used by the Nazis as an excuse to confiscate weapons from the Jewish people and others, such as Gypsies.
However, Hitler and his Nazis enacted stricter "laws" in 1938. So, my point still stands that he disarmed them, using his enforcers to do so. Yet, with that slight correction as to where he started.
(albeit to explain the similarities between Germany and modern America)
Yeah, I learned through my own research while in college and after, that their were various "eugenics laws" enacted in this country, in several states. They restricted people from reproduction, through these laws. They also, established profiles of certain ethnic groups as having criminal tendencies, through criminology theory.
They thought that someone's skull size might be an indication of being a criminal. Also, they thought that people with a "criminal" family member or ancestor could be a potential criminal.
The term "eugenics" was first used by Francis Galton, if I am not mistaken. And it took the land by storm. There are those who claim that the Nazis adopted their own twisted ideology from American States with those "laws" spoken of above. I wouldn't doubt it.
There were those in this country who actually, supported Hitler, until he invaded Poland. Then, during and after WWII, the "government" here brought some of those Nazis over here, under Project Paperclip. They were scientists and Truman wanted them vetted. If any had more than a nominal involvement or were supportive of The Nazis, they were excluded. However, I wonder how effective they were in keeping Nazis out of the country, as they were bringing these scientists over here.
None of those atrocities would have happened if Hitler did not have those who obeyed and carried out those orders. Without many of the people going along with his "laws", including the Jewish and political dissidents getting on those cattle cars, he would not have had power.
The point is that, this applies the world over. We know, from history, that he was not the only ruler who had enforcers carry out his orders. Stalin is another one, with those who were willing to enforce his decrees to starve millions of their own people, amongst other crimes. And Mao is another example.
It is always the enforcers, who carry out such evil acts that are more morally culpable. And the US is no different.
Both of the above links are about incidents where the people were found to be in "violation" of "gun laws". But the 2nd Amendment protects the "Right to keep and bear Arms", and the last part says it ". . .shall not be infringed". This is of course being ignored and violated on many fronts under the guise of "laws and regulations".
The 2nd Amendment is as follows:
"A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The People are the Militia.
At Waco, if they wanted Koresh, they could have waited for him to leave the compound. They did not do so because of erroneous information that he rarely leaves it.
Hitler enacted "gun control laws" and disarmed the Jewish population. Then, they were sent, along with political dissidents and others who were deemed unfit, to their deaths, in concentration camps. But it could not have been done without people to support and carry through with such orders.
In response to your own claim that, "The problem isn't guns. It's people."
Meaning those who are intent upon harming others will find a way to do so. Many get a badge and gun, then, use it to push people around up to and including murdering them. And they have government at their back.
What is your goddamned obsession with government? You don't want to disarm mass shooters and rapists, just government? Very rational.
Their "authority" does not exist in Reality. I have no delusions about controlling other people. I can only do what I can do on an individual basis, to stop a mass shooter or a rapist. That does not include disarming everyone else, who is not actively seeking to do harm to others, and would do the same as I would in situations involving someone attempting to harm others.
Apparently you can't remember what your own claim was about.
So, you're okay with disarming everyone else, but leave those "in power" armed? Yeah, that always works out great. Check history, many tyrants did just that before they murdered millions of their own people.
So why did you say they don't? You said the problem isn't guns.
Only in the sense that they are used to commit acts of violence. I have not disputed that. And everyone has the potential to do that, given that they have free-will do make the choice to act in that way. So, the answer would be that everyone, including those in "government" should disarm? There are so many guns, that I don't think it would be possible. And those "in power" will certainly not, give theirs up. They are the worst actors of violence.
Of course they are, because that is what guns were invented for!! For taking life. Are we finally getting somewhere?
You can hardly be free if you have tyrants, willing to use guns, to take it from you. And to them, "might makes right". The whole purpose behind having an armed populace, is to protect against that very scenario. When you are facing them, and it comes down to kill or be killed, it is best to have such a thing as a gun to protect Life, yours.
For God's sake no it isn't accurate. Gun violence is gun violence. Gun control is gun control.
For Fuck's sake, it is accurate because in order to enforce the "gun control" gun violence must be used to seize those weapons, from those not willing to give them up.
You are repeating the exact same assertion I debunked. There was a handgun ban in the UK following the Dunblane Massace and no armed soldiers turned up at my door. It is your responsibility to follow the law because the government does not have the resources, manpower or inclination to check every single home to see if every single law is being followed. That's absolutely fucking RIDICULOUS!!! Do armed soldiers turn up at the weekend to check you aren't trafficking children from your basement? Or committing computer fraud through your laptop?
You haven't "debunked" shit, let alone disprove it. So, people willingly disarmed after that incident. An unjust law is no law at all. Which as far as I am concerned is all of man's laws. They obeyed "authority" and will suffer for it when they are kept from leaving their homes because that authority tells them not too, as if they are in a prison.
Also, I have mentioned incidents here in America, in the nineties. Ruby Ridge and Waco. People, including women and children, burned alive at Waco. They were both, done in the name of enforcing "gun control". So, tell me, how is that not gun violence?
I also, posted a link to a documentary that covered the gun confiscation, done by the National Guard, under orders of the New Orleans city government, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It has actual footage of the SOLDIERS going door to door, enforcing that order.
The things you are saying are nothing short of insanity.
That's funny. You claim that what I am saying is "nothing short of insanity", yet I have shown historical evidence of what I am talking about. Yet, you are willingly IGNORANT of what I have said. It is as if I am speaking to a rock. But you have nothing, you come back with emotional kneejerk reactions and insults for what I say. At least, the rock would be silent.
The Old French entry says that mentum is Late Latin. The English entry says mentum is Latin. Neither of them mention classical Latin, which is the period before Late Latin. Regardless, government has never meant mind control.
The point of going to the root meaning of words is to understand what they originally, meant. When you have a word like "government" it is two words put together, so, you check the meaning of each word. The suffix -mente is shown to be used prior to mentum. One is shown as Latin, as you said, and Late Latin.
I made the time distinction based on the use of the word "late". And putting the latin forms of govern together with mente, mens, or mentis. It does show it to be "to control mind". Now, "mentum" means instrument/means. I asked what would be the means behind the governing aspect? What activates that?
It would have to be something within, first, then, it expresses itself externally. Each of those people you said, who interacts to correct bad behavior would have to have that internal aspect, am I right? And in order for it to work, they have to agree to cooperate in such a manner. Or it does not work. If you want to call that government, fine, but those same people have no say over anyone else, who is not part of their group.
What it boils down to is "government" is someone having to be subservient to someone else's rule, and no one is right to force that upon others, outside of themselves and their property. That is slavery. No one owns anyone else, nor is right to try. But we have been over this, already.
Given that mentum forms the ment suffix for many english words, how is that particular linguistic adoption an obfuscation?
I am going from the first use of mente as the suffix, from Latin. And a question came to mind concerning where the Late Latin mentum came from. I looked up mentum in my Latin Dictionary and it shows it means "the chin". So it seems like there is something not right, there. Maybe, using it as a suffix changes the meaning?
But it shows that the word means the chin, and that would be a noun. Just as the mind would be considered a noun with the action coming before it, like "to control, direct, guide, etc." These are verbs. So, it seems like there might be obfuscation and misinformation being applied. And our online sources might be the culprits. Or places to consider.
When you first, addressed this, I checked and sited the Latin dictionary I used. It was Cassell's Latin/English Dictionary.
No, not fake. I don't like being rude to people but it is a fact that you are a stupid person. That is my dilemma.
I haven't seen much of anything productive from you, other than, "You are so stupid, blah, blah, blah." When you could explain your own position on this issue. I explained mine in depth. You said, "I feel strongly about this issue. . ." Okay, why? Please, explain. If you don't I will just figure you are attempting to think with your emotions. Good luck with that, if it is what you are doing.
Are you actually joking right now? You've just tried to argue that guns shouldn't be banned because "law-abiding citizens" will suffer.
Yeah, because a bloody armed conflict may ensue. You haven't paid any attention to what I have said, have you? Any one who truly values life, does not want to see that. But Freedom is worth laying down your life for, so that you and others may have a free life, rather than be subservient to others, like enslaved.
Oh, OK. So you admit that you want a gun so you can break the law?
Having a gun might be breaking the "law" soon, in this country. But I don't recognize "man's laws" as being legitimate. I recognize Natural Law and adhere to the Principles therein. But you don't know what that is, do you?
What I pointed out in my post, about helping to free the slaves, would have been breaking the "laws" of of that time. But it was the right thing to do. It was the same with those who hid Jewish people in their attics. "Man's laws" are typically, in contradiction to doing what is right.