- 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.
1. In what ay do I need to be more specific about the German/Dutch Left-Communist current.
2. If a non-communist does not know what I am talking about they can gladly go look it up an learn something.
3. If a communist doesn't know what I'm talking about, well I quite frankly would question their 'communism'.
4. Where did I ever write that the state has no role in the transition of society? Your quoting of the manifesto to prove a non-point to myself is of no use.
1. Socialism is not the government controlling 'what's supposed to be private'. This is rubbish on two counts. One it assumes "stuff that's meant to be private" and wrongly equates it with property. And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism. If you have bothered to read anything by the German/Dutch left-communists you would know this.
2. Socialism and Capitalism aren't 'systems of governemnt' you can compare side by side and choose the better one. Socialism is the real expression of working class oppression and the historic tendency toward it's realisation. Go read a book and come back when you have half a brain.
The first question that needs answering is how do we define 'normal'?
Right from the get go I don't believe that you can have an adequate definition of 'normality' even on the basis of anthropology and biology.
In short, normality is subjective.
A paedophile is a person. Most have 2 arms, 2 legs, a mouth, a nose, eyes, a brain and all the other bits and pieces that make a human and are to this extent 'normal'.
Please, think with your head before you make stupid debates.
Would you care to explain why 18 is some magical age where everybody suddenly gains an understanding's of their own interests and the right to decide what to do with their own lives. This is horse shit. It's my body, if I'm 16 and I want it plastered on the internet or on billboards I should have no restrictions to do so. Why is it up to a 'responsible adult' to decide a child's life for them. Please, drop the paternalism then you might be able to think without the moralistic and authoritarian hazy that surrounds your argument.
I would reject the very question on the basis that it is essentially useless. How do we define 'right' and who are you or I to say what is objectively 'right' or 'wrong'. Moral judgements are all essentially useless and serve no value. It is on this basis that I do not object (not claim it is 'right) to such photographs.
I disagree with both positions. Religion does not exist soley in the clouds and in the minds of men. It has it's basis in the existing material conditions of society.
You can argue all you like about whether religion in the fuedal era was a positive or negative force, but the fact that it was a force, and a force that could not be done away with due to the existing material and social conditions makes the question void.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!