Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
as it takes away from our constitutional rights.
They have constitutional rights to free speech in Canada? I thought they censored in Canada. I might be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I mean.. how does calling Muslims terrorists save lives or defend the nation?
Banning Muslims and advocating for the banning of Muslims saves lives because it prevents terror attacks in the US. It defends the nation because if Muslim immigration gets too out of control, then Islam replaces Christianity in the west. It means shariah law, which Linda Sarsour supports(https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/25/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour/) I'm not saying ban all Muslims. We must assimilate all Muslims entering western countries in order to prevent the spread of Shariah law, which is actually sexist and homophobic and this is why many Muslim countries behave the way they do. I am saying that this is the logic that people who are against Islamic immigration tend to use.
If their constituents want to protect pregnant women from harassment, I certainly would have no objections
This so called harassment is just pro life free speech. If you ban that, you might as well ban all pro lifers.
What benefit is there in allowing people to be assholes?
It's free speech. Many people like mustardness think I'm an asshole. If this is harassment, would it be grounds to censor all those that mustardness deems offensive(basically anyone right wing)? Or should someone more rational decide? If someone more rational should decide, who is rational enough to decide what is and isn't hate speech? A right winger would generally say that burning the American flag is hate speech and should be banned (I don't advocate this position. If someone wants to burn the US flag, or a gay flag they should be allowed to do it as long as it is safely done). A left winger would probably say that burning the gay flag is hate speech and that saying a n word variation is hate speech. The right tend to have no problem with this. If someone rational decides what is and isn't hate speech, who is rational enough to decide? No one. Not even God is rational enough to decide. Otherwise, atheists would be bearers of hate speech and would be punished for their belief.
If God isn't rational enough to decide what is and isn't hate speech, then no one is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
That party implements rules and regulations that the majority agree with and the minority do not. Personally I think people should be treated kindly regardless of their religion.
Just as religious freedom exists in the country, ideological freedom should exist as well. Should I be allowed to call a Muslim a terrorist? I should because it is free speech and in the mind of the speaker, it is defense of a nation. Who cares if it's racist if it saves lives? Terrorism kills. I don't agree with the people who want to ban Muslims, but they believe that Muslims are motivated by the Quran.
Most definitions of hate speech would say no.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/manitoba-bubble-zone-law-would-ban-pro-life-harassment-that-doesnt-even-exi states that Manitoba has 150 meters of buffer room that prohibits pro life speech. When the concept of hate speech gets implemented, anything can be classified as hate speech.
I mean if you can't act like a decent human being and are screaming profanities at every minority in the streets
If you want to be mean to people because of their race, that's something you should be allowed to do. They can hate you for it, but you should be allowed to do it.
Are you implying that only women can be raped?
Women make up an overwhelming majority of rape victims.
No one should get punished for speaking what they believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The Muslim example is fairly typical for hate speech.
Many Americans believe that Muslims are a threat to the west(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/). By punishing these people with jail for preaching "hate speech", you are basically preaching one party rule on at least some ideologies.
I think the ideologies are clear enough. If I were to say something pro life, would it be hate speech/harassment towards women who have had abortions? If so, then what is free speech? Only the stuff you agree with? If so that seems very similar to tyranny.
Would being anti gun be anti women/sexist since guns do statistically reduce rape?
How do you propose on punishing people who say hate speech?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Justice is more important. I don't think that juries who excersize tDP are committing revenge. Saying that execution for murder is revenge is like saying imprisonment for kidnapping is revenge. It is Revenge is vigilantic. Justice is not.
Created:
Posted in:
Feel free to define it here. The Burden of definition is on the proponents of banning "hate speech" to differentiate it from free speech. Otherwise, they are the same.
Created:
This kindof is off topic, so I plan on making a whole new thread to decide what is and isn't hate speech.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
So if we were to play this definition out consistently, then me saying we shouldn't allow Muslims into the country in order to reduce terrorism, which is an ideology that many people have, would be hate speech. If sex/gender is a protected group, then would me being pro life be classified as a hate crime? Would being pro choice be a hate crime because it is threatening to the fetus? Would saying something anti gun be hate speech since guns do reduce rape?
Unless you can come to a definition of hate speech that is respectful to everyone who peacefully preaches what they believe, then hate speech should count as free speech.
I think you can preach whatever you want as long as it's peaceful.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What counts as hate speech?
To stay on topic, I'm in a unique position. As of right now, I don't support the wall, but I support Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
So we can agree that separatist movements are better?
When did I say that?
What you think is irrelevant.
So by your definition, the US commits this not by killing anyone, but by merely encouraging people to assimilate? If we all had our own language, there would be many cultures. But it would be impossible to communicate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What land are you thinking of?
In the US, I'm wanting to sacrifice most of the coastal land for farming, with the exception of National parks that happen to be on the coast. This way, it is easy for purposes of trade. I also support GMOs which can increase our carrying capacity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That genocide happened a long time ago and no present day Canadian participated in it. I don't think cultural genocide/assimilation should be genocide because no one is supposed to die in it.
Good, they should! So should the natives, since you seem so determined to bulldoze the few square feet of land they have left to build another shitty pipeline.
Separatist movements may cause a war, which causes death, and is bad for the unity of Canada. Assimilation on the other hand, would help the country out a lot. How is culture even worth having around if it can cause separatist movements?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I support the death penalty(tDP) for murder because of the following contentions:
1: tDP is an effective deterrent for murder. The punishment should fit the crime.
2: Eye for an eye.
3: tDP reduces the homicide rate(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fno3SaXsJAt1SKTlKC-vVAjVJTgWvVJG5I0qKqM5Lbw/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=112588562267875946799). This homicide difference according to my calculations is enough to save more innocent lives then the amount that die innocently from the execution chair.
4: If executions are public, tDP can be cheaper then life imprisonment due to ticket sales paying for the execution.
Thanks for being civil about this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Rather then decreasing the world's population, why doesn't the carrying capacity for humans increase? This can be done with GMOs and the clearing of land to a partial extent to create farms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Africans would eventually revolt and confiscate the resource plants
They won't revolt if they aren't oppressed. Most colonies have had oppressed natives. The few exceptions tend to not want independence. Some examples are French Guiana and Puerto Rico. If America make them capitalist with incentives, then their economy will prosper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
reduce the world's population, less people means less resources need, less global warming.
How do you propose the reduce the world's population?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a joke to say "renewable" energy is wind and solar when it is impossible to manufacture turbines and panels without fossil fuels.
Lets say your correct on this. They save more fossil fuels then what it takes to produce them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the government is so inept as to listen to junk scientists and make bad policy that kills billions of Africans
If DDT is good, then it can be legal. I don't know too much on DDT, so I might change my mind. There aren't billions of Africans to kill. The US gov can provide the Africans with money via trade. We give them $500 billion in cash annually. They give us $800 billion in Natural resources annually. The US sells that to other places for $800 Billion. Africa gets $500 Billion annually. The US gets $300 Billion annually. Both parties profit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
You know, the part that English people genocided their way into holding.
Although they outnumbered the French, genocide was rare or nonexistent,
Leave the French people in peace on the tiny bit of land that your shitty ancestors didn't pillage them out of.
If we don't assimilate them, then they will want to break away to form their own country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Colonizing the moon is modern day lunacy.
It has lots of natural resources that would benefit the economy on Earth.
Taking care of the ecological environment that sustains all humans here on Earth needs to be the priority.
Do you own alternative energy sources? If not, then your being a hypocrite since you advocate for others to fix the environment yet you won't contribute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1: Yes. Plan B.
Rankings for #1:
B.
C.
D.
E.
A. One non forfeited debate would confirm that you aren't a troll.
2: Yes. Freedom of speech.
3: Yes. This prevents bias.
4: Yes. Quantity should matter to an extent. If I cite 2 reliable sources and you cite 1 reliable source, I should get the source points. However, if I cite 2 reliable sources and you cite 10 biased sources, I should get the point.
5: No.
6: No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Private companies can't establish colonies on the moon without it belonging to the country that they are from. Private companies can exist to colonize the moon to get resources and tourism. However, in terms of territorial expansion, it's best left up to the gov to expand territory.
I wonder what you think of the The 1967 Outer Space Treaty?
I honestly think the outer space treaty is a bad treaty that needs to be reformed. It will inevitably get overturned once humans have the ability to colonize other worlds. I think currently the moon is unclaimable unless colonies are on the moon. My ideal treaty that I think people can get around would be that whichever country lands on the moon first and puts a base there gets the land 100 m in any direction from that base and the collective territory acquired from this should be 100% connected on a national basis.
I also think a similar treaty, the antarctic treaty should have these terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think DDT is off topic to the focus at hand; if the US invading Africa is a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The Me Too movement wants people to listen solely to women who claim to have been raped. They might be true. If true, the rapists deserve life imprisonment. But strong evidence is needed for these accusations to be taken seriously.
I don't agree nor disagree with women who claim to be raped. I believe the facts and evidence(Source The amazing Lucas).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Innocent until proven guilty. If the liberals won't punish a murderer without proof, they also shouldn't punish rapists without proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Currently NASA receives about $40 billion from the government annually. Under my tax plan, NASA would receive $600 billion before the foreign debt is paid off and $960 billion once the foreign debt is paid off. With this extra funding, we'll go to space pretty soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Is the creation of this site a volunteer project or did you get paid to do it?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Since you are against the AK 15, you might be interested in this debate:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Which one of us is the DART GOD though.
No one. We are all just human beings using the internet.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How effective are tasers at deterring Military coups?
I don't know. I think they work about as well as guns, but I don't know.
Do you think if Venezuelans simply had tasers that they would have food and power right now?
They might. If they had capitalism, then they would have food and power right now.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Forgot to mention you above. Sorry about that.
Created:
http://www.yoursecurityguide.com/taser-stun.aspx states that tasers are effective.
Hunting is fine, hunting rifles can be legal. Rifles can be used for target practice.
Don't forget the Boston marathon bombers.
I hope the Boston bombers get the death penalty. I know they won't because they did it in Massachusetts.
Do you have any ideas on how to prevent sickos from committing homicide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
He's pagan so he doesn't believe in a true god.
I don't like God either. He said some stuff I didn't like, so I left Christianity.
He is a bit crazy, but we all tolerate him
I think RM is arrogant(https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/230).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
USA also killed a billion Africans by banning DDT.
If anything, banning DDT saved lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Thanks for being curious about this topic. I think an invasion would benefit the African continent and benefit the country as well, in terms of both human rights and economically.
If the US wants to survive the future, it needs to make friends not enemies.
If we invade Africa, and pay them territory subsidies, then I would think that Africa would be a friend, not an enemy. As history has shown, as long as the locals aren't oppressed, they are fine with being a colony. This is why French Guiana and Puerto Rico are mostly fine with being territories. If the Africans aren't oppressed, but instead have trade opportunities, then they won't want to break away.
Not feasible in today's world, with the UN council.
The UN would be okay with it if the locals are. If the locals aren't oppressed, once invaded and paid territory subsidies, they would be okay with it.
Is your solution for the US having a bad reputation worldwide to invade even more countries...?
If we invade and help the countries(not for free, my idea is to provide a $500 billion annual territory subsidy to Africa and in exchange get $800 billion worth of natural resources, which Africa has a lot of), then America would have a better reputation worldwide as those who invade and develop. The US could then turn around and sell those natural resources for $800 billion to Europe, Asia, and other interested parties. Africa gets $500 Billion annually more in addition to their current economy, the US gets $300 billion. The rest of the world gets cheap resources to improve their economies.
The US already gets those by exploiting the continent. Much of American investment poured into Africa is for mineral extraction.
Not sure if this is true.
Supposedly, 1 billion African would turn 300 million Americans, not the opposite.
This wouldn't be true since the US is in charge. Just as when the British were in charge of India, the Indians got more assimilated to the British then the other way around, despite their superior numbers, if America invades Africa, the Africans would get assimilated to American rule from a ideological standpoint. The exception to this is states/territory/colony rights, where on some issues they can make their own laws.
On the contrary. If the US invades Africa, the African countries would rely on China even more.
If the US invades Africa, they would rely on Africa more. China would be a little hypocritical since they invaded Tibet. Granted Tibet is now okay with it since their standard of living has gone up, but they used to want independence. Once China improved Tibetan life, Tibet doesn't want independence.
If the US cares about the high infant morality in Africa then it should invest in the continent to raise life conditions there, instead of exploiting it.
If your referring to foreign aid, that barely works. The UN has been at it for 100 years, it has barely worked. The US should invest in things to make African life better. I would prefer it if we got something in return. My proposal is:
-The US gives Africa $500 Billion annually.
-Africa gives the US $800 Billion worth of natural resources and agrees to become a colony of the US.
In case you didn't know, it was a US government policy for decades to ration African aids to curb population growth in Africa, through natural high mortality & forced government incentives.
Can you cite this?
Some pros to the invasion:
Pros to invading Africa:
- More minerals being mined with American Technology. This benefits the USA
- The UN should be okay with it. They wish to eliminate poverty, and an African invasion would help do that.
- More human rights on the continent, such as legalizing homosexuality. More human rights in America too, since we need their help too.
- Can make Africa part of a 1st world country and could even make Africa 1st world itself. Similar to #2.
- Can make Africa less prone to HIV/AIDS.
- It can allow the USA to give Africa a better reputation of the west.
- Can allow Africans to immigrate to the US and vice versa, therefore increasing globalization.
- Less refugees to Europe.
- An Actual good use for an increase in military spending.
- Better education opportunities.
- More land.
- Lots of jobs implementing solar panels in the desert and in the SW USA.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What is your point with a bunch of quotes. Your going to like what I'm going to say next.
If we banned guns and tasers instead were advertised and encouraged as a means of self defense, then both sides win. The left gets to decrease the homicide rate. The right gets undisputed protection that no one wants to take away. The NRA benefits because a taser costs more the a gun, so they would make more money. Automatic tasers can protect against multiple people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Do you receive money for creating this site from advertisers?
Created:
They are very similar. Also 4600th philosophy post right here.
Created:
Posted in:
I favor the moon due to it's extreme closeness to Earth relative to Mars's distance from Earth.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone else want to comment?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
tobacco kills, what 10x or more people per year than firearms?
Good point. As of right now, I agree with you.
Created: