"Why yes?"
Is, I think a fair point.
I can't say I've thought on it deeply,
I 'do look forward to reading the debate.
Though I still hold to my, The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection. View.
. . . Well, humans 'do 'conflate and anthropomorphize. . . Movements, Nations, Groups. . .
I might say to someone from Britain, we still remember when you burned our White House down.
Of course it was different 'individuals from the past,
But by genetics, history, and law, the past gets connected to the present.
Heh, funnily, I'm not sure one 'necessarily even needs to 'be that connected.
Suppose we met some aliens from outer space,
Why, one would not need to be the same ethnicity of Watt, just the same species, to take pride by association.
Heh, and then the alien meets some being from another dimension,
Well, you know what 'we of 'this dimension take pride in having accomplished?
One's ancestors 'surviving 'despite all the mosquitos, and evolving sickle cells, sounds kind of metal,
Sounds something to take pride in, pride in one's ancestors, in possessing their same dna, pride in their survival of such.
You are my pride and joy, sounds more a parent than a child,
But there are still children ashamed or proud of their parents.
Why not extend to others of one's group?
When one's school football team wins, even if oneself did not play, why 'not take pride in being connected to those individuals?
Same with ethnicity, why 'not?
Pride by association.
'They did it, 'We did it, 'I did it.
Close enough.
I'm not sure why I need to 'work for something, to feel pride in it?
The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection.
. . .
Heh, I'm pretty Tribalistic in my views.
I think Humans have a tendency to live in groups, Societies, Clumps.
Loving and valuing most, those 'closest in our group, and to ourselves.
What kind of human values a stranger more than family?
Values an 'Outgroup more than their own 'Ingroup?
Well. . . There are many 'kinds values, many kinds of groupings, and I can appreciate a person valuing truth or kindness, to all persons.
. . . But I'd rather exalt my own Ingroup, to an extent.
I think their well being depends on being good people to others, so I 'would encourage that.
It's not 'just humans though,
Wolves hunting together, Birds of a feather flying together, Pods of whales swimming together.
Just nature and game theory, one builds pacts with the group closest to oneself, sometimes to the cost of others, but at times that's the cost of being alive and living well.
There was a theory, Suggested in the 1990's called Dunbars Number, Which suggested a 'limit, To the number of people we can maintain a stable social relationship with.
ETHNIC PRIDE
I 'enjoy taking pride in my ancestors,
Even if there's luck to it.
If I was fishing and happened to catch a bigger fish, I'd take pride in having come into such a possession.
Course one can argue that took effort,
But eh, you also say 'collective accomplishments.
My ancestor did the work, and I'm proud of them.
. . . Other than pleasure, I 'do think there are other reasons why pride in genetics can be valuable.
It can inspire people to 'safeguard their ancestors' achievements, to be 'worthy of them, to not as an heir dishonor them in life.
I like my dirty blonde hair well enough, take pride in 'having it, though other hair colors are nice too.
Title and Description,
Hm, I know 'nothing of Krishna.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 1
Detachment to Outcome, yet stay true to Duty.
Balance and Moderation in Life.
The Mind is a Powerful Tool.
Wisdom of Krishna and Potential Benefit of their Teachings.
Con Round 1
Suggests we can gauge the greatness of a mentor by the number of followers.
Not sure I agree, new ideas come about it life sometimes, just starting with 'one person, compared to 'everyone else in the world.
I 'do think there is value in using the crowd as a gauge, but it's a value a I take with salt and other considerations.
Con states that Pro said that "existence is irrelevant."
I can't seem to find where Pro said that, exact quotes can be valuable, partially due to Ctrl F on the keyboard.
"Religion isn’t make believe, but the context behind it?" - Pro Round 1
Alas the meaning of this line escape me.
I think Con twists, Detachment here, the way Pro stated it, was more about accepting some outcomes are beyond control.
Con's arguments for Jesus appear to be,
Depend on God, this 'sounds kind of bad to me, but I assume it is meant to take God as a rock, an anchor, something to take strength in and continue to try one's best. Trusting that this world and the after is for the best.
Spirituality, before physical comfort.
Surrendering to God’s truth, acceptance of something 'more than us, not getting too caught up in self pride and our 'own works.
RFV Thoughts
Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Debate is still just starting out, I'd vote it a tie, with Pro a bit ahead, due to more in depth description of benefits.
Con will need to argue 'why spirituality and God are to be valued and Wisdom.
Con makes 'some headway arguing number of followers, though not much. It could use a source and a compare and contrast. Also has flaw of what is being judged is 'Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 2
I'm not 'loving the dive into 'powers, as a voter I'm more interested in their teachings.
Though debate 'is who is a better spiritual mentor.
Something of value in the debate, might be to define what is 'meant by spirituality.
Pro gave some very useful lessons in round 1, but I think they'd do good to further identify them as 'spiritual lessons.
Pro points out the 'many languages that Krishna's teachings have been translated into. But same with my reason of being unimpressed by Con's argument of number of followers, I am not impressed by number of translated languages. One can get more followers, or more translations, focus should be on what in the teachings makes it 'likely to get more followers or translations.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
"A big foundation of wisdom is emotional intelligence." Pro Round 2
Describes various aspects of applications.
Claims Jesus is more vague than Krishna, in how each teaches lessons.
Argues Krishna's been around longer and thus 'assumably effected more people.
But again, I don't think that's a core of this debate.
Pro argues Krishna has spread to more people and cultures, and argues this
Pro is arguing Wisdom, Communication, and positive Impact.
The sources, judging by their names, seem more basic primers/information to the unlearned than sources 'proving any claims of Pro or claims over Con.
Con Round 2
I'm doubtful of the importance of a Spiritual Mentor 'existing,
Unless debate was about which is the 'true religion of reality,
But this debate could be who is a better mentor Obi Wan or Qui Gon JInn,
By that I am not arguing either is not real, just that I don't see their existing or not as important for the debate,
. . . Though I suppose one could argue what if they were in 'person teaching us, eh, just feels a sidebar to me.
Con argues the importance of Spirituality in the hereafter.
Which 'is important in debate, per 'what 'is 'spirituality.
Con argues Jesus words impacted faster, thus proving potential value.
I 'can see their argument of real vs man made, though I'm still not convinced it will have huge impact on debate.
I think Con mistakes Languages for Followers in Pros argument.
"blue skinned baby" Eh, not conduct hits, but I don't think such talk usually 'helps one's side in a debate.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
I think Con makes Good arguments for Spirituality, ah wait, hm,
'If Christianity is true, then there 'would be a lot of Wisdom and potential of positive impact, in the importance placed in the hereafter,
But I think Con is neglecting arguments of the here and now in terms of Wisdom and Potential of positive impact.
Both sides seem a bit tied in Communication to me.
RFV Thoughts,
I'd still give a tie, but edge to Pro, though only one round left, part of tie is due to both debaters having possible different approaches to the debate, and the three items being pursued.
Pro Round 3
I'm not sure Con 'dislikes the setup, but that they may be approaching it differently.
Pro makes decent argument on the difficulty of proof, or at least of 'convincing people that Jesus or Krishna are Truly Divine and Existent.
Pro 'does focus a lot of the debate on 'worldly matters though.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Pro argues the Communication and Potential for Positive Impact, though I don't think myself that one 'has to be Christian to take useful Game Theory from it.
Still, Con is the one, not I who needs to argue such.
And Con 'has focused their arguments more in the hereafter. Which I don't think is 'terrible angle, but I'm not sure it was as 'good an angle in more regular interpretation of debate and description.
Pro argues the difficulty of face value words, and connects physical conditions with spiritual conditions.
Argues for Pragmatism, and what can be Observed.
I have not really been giving points to 'either side for the personal abilities of Krishna or Jesus, though I 'suppose such 'could play a factor.
. . . If one read the debate as which individual teaching you to your face, as opposed to reading about what they taught.
Pro argues against Con Communication argument, that tech and force could have been cause for influence.
Argues longevity of Krishna thought, is more proof towards their value, than being pushed by external individuals and groups.
Unless Con has something 'really good, I'm thinking Communication will go to Pro.
Argues against Cons arguments for devotion being Wisdom or Potential for Good.
Con Round 3
You're not 'wrong to argue the way you do, but will it convince people other than Christians?
And I 'do think the argument of which mentor is 'real has value, but that it might be a difficult argument to pull off.
Con makes arguments on the power/value of the concept/truth of the hereafter. Upon those who believe it, and it's fair to say that 'many of the Bibles teachings are of man as of 'more than this mortal coil.
Still, religions 'do pop up now and then.
It's a 'big. . . Field though, why religions occur, why some 'stay longer than others.
Con makes decent argument that first isn't best,
But I still think Pros argument of how long the teachings have lasted, show their value.
Though Con 'could compare and contrast numbers of 'current believers, Christianity has been around a long time too,
Though as Pro argued, there are possible reasons such as force for such.
Early Christians 'did make progress into the hearts of people and nations 'before they 'had nations and armies.
"blue skinned baby." Doesn't win points Con.
Con, "Well don’t you have to be Hindu to follow Krishna?"
Eh, I don't think so, nor Christian to follow 'some Christian wisdoms.
If Pro hadn't made the argument that you 'don't need to be Hindu to follow Krishna, I'd slide Communication back to a tie, but Pro 'did make such an argument, so Pro still get's communication,
Though it was 'close, due to Con's argument of older not meaning better.
"cowardly pussy’s" Eh, I'm still not counting it as a conduct hit, but certain words 'still effect perception of your argument as a whole.
I think even when Christians act contrary, such as war and nationalism against other nations,
They still often have an understanding they are not being terribly 'Christian by such an action.
I 'do think you have an argument, of masses of Christians holding to parts of the Bible, or later interpretations of the Bible, as basis for their harsh actions and often hate against others.
Though I am 'still unsure of statistics.
I would not be 'terribly surprised if you won,
Though 'something 'still gives me a feeling that Pro winning is more likely.
I 'do hope you get more votes and feedback on your debate, and that they are fair.
@NoOneInParticular
I 'do love my father, recognize he had a bad environment growing up.
I 'am thankful of the 'good actions and memories we have had together.
I recognize, that he has 'given his kids a 'lot in effort, time, money.
I recognize that he has humanistic qualities and actions towards people 'other than his family as well, at times.
Even if he has flaws,
Generally 'all humans do, I expect.
Ach! I 'always seem to forget that thing is there.
I did not even think of it until you mentioned it in post #18.
"Judging on what christians of any branch (catholic, evangelical, orthodox, etc.) derive their beliefs from today, and how they have built their religion since jesus died. The holy scriptures, church hierarchy, etc. Always, assuming that jesus actually existed!!!"
- The short description, Viewable 'before, but not after clicking on the debate.
. . . I'm still not convinced that it greatly changes the debate though.
The scriptures, hierarchy, ect 'still exist in many different forms. And I 'still think there is the difficulty of tying all of Christianity together under one label of flawed structure.
"Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?" - #18
No, I'm sure that there exist people who one could argue have different Christian Ideals, than the Ideals Christ might have advocated for.
. . .
Modern Christianity, I 'still think it's an interesting topic, but that more effort was needed by you to clearly define and group all or most of modern Christianity and Christians as such.
And further to argue it as corrupt from the teachings of Jesus.
I don't really 'pay much attention to Christianity myself, other than occasionally reading bits and pieces of it.
I 'am an Atheist, but was 'somewhat raised to be a Christian.
. . My brothers, my sister and I, were all given names from the Bible.
As children, our mother read the Bible to us some, taught us to pray.
As a child, I prayed that a man from the news I viewed as evil, would find his way back to goodness and God,
Though the man was greatly despised by Americans at that time, my mother praised me for such thoughts, and encouraged such as being what it 'means to be Christian. Loving even one's enemies.
. . . As we grew older though, such petered away, she had to start working,
My father worked as well, as a teacher but had summers off, bills were still an issue.
. . .
I cannot recall my father speaking of the Bible or Christianity, except when I was in my 30s, my father is still alive, doing alright.
. . .
I don't mean to bring up my childhood, just, people have biases, viewpoints differently colored. Many people had worse childhoods than mine, my dad among them.
. . . But he was frequently an unpleasant father to have, though he loved his children, he was controlling of 'any choices, would emotionally bully his kids, 'minor physical 'actions of discipline or forcing behaviors and actions.
When with my sister one time, he returned a wallet to the police 'after taking the money out.
. . .
My 'mother, after finding a hundred dollar bill on the grocery aisle floor, took it to the lost and found,
She worked as a park ranger at a campground, and would 'regularly spend her own time and money, helping people down on their luck.
She gives to charity, gives money to random people on the street holding signs.
My eldest brother is much like her, and I've said this elsewhere, but it 'creeps 'me 'out.
That amount of altruism.
. . .
Yeah, one reads about bad 'groups of Christians at times, churches, groups, individuals.
But there is good too, I couldn't say how much.
. . .
Yes, the debate is to be judged on 'Yours and Pros arguments,
But it's hard for me to completely avoid bias,
And what 'you see as Christianity, might not be what 'I see.
"Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!"
- #18
I think you pointed out 'part of Christianity, and assert all or a majority of it to 'be such.
While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian.
While I 'do think Pros arguments could have addressed more, and gone more in depth.
I think they hit upon a core in the debate, what does it 'mean to be a Christian?
They apply the yardstick of following Jesus, and view it through a very 'personal lens.
Not viewing Christianity as some of the various organizations or churches, but the people.
I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people.
There 'are arguments and statistics for such, but they were not obvious to me when I read the debate.
You 'do quote the Bible a 'number of times, but arguably that goes towards the same point of how Christians should be good loving people, not hateful.
Pro makes the 'same argument.
To get my vote, I think you would have needed stronger evidence and argument that the Churches and Organizations 'were Christianity.
. . I 'can't quite put my finger on it, but there's 'something in the debate that puts me out of kilter.
Christianity isn't a 'single entity, with clear cut behaviors and actions.
Though such vague definitions 'can readily enough identify a group, I think I needed more argument of why Christianity was better recognized by hate and greed, than love and following Jesus.
. . . .
"Now if I had known the debate was based on mega cathedrals and people trying to get rich of the idea of Christianity I would not have accepted because I agree with you. But your debate title is Christianity and I have proved that Jesus judges Christianity from individual hearts." - Pro Round 2
If you had defined the debate in the description as Jesus will not recognize mega cathedrals as his successors, I think Pro would have argued differently,
But even your arguments, I don't think 'quite take that tact exactly.
Pro states they argued against the title of the debate, and much of your gist/meaning of your arguments. I think.
"But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires."
- #75 Umbrellacorp
I'd say the debate focused on the question of ethics indoctrination and intent.
Which Pro managed to limit the degree of harm of such, in their arguments.
The Homosexuality part could have been replaced with a 'number of adjectives, and I 'think the debate would have been mostly unchanged.
I think arguing 'why the activity was ethical or nonethical, would have helped 'either side. But 'neither did so much.
Pro focused on the right/expectation of parents to pass their values, and the existence of soft indoctrination.
Con focused on attacking indoctrination. . And they 'might have managed it, if they focused more on the possible harm of indoctrinating heterosexuality upon homosexual individuals.
But I view Con as wasting 'way too much time on attacking indoctrination as a concept, religion, and stating that being homosexual is fine.
. . As it stands in the debate, with neither side giving argument of Heterosexuality or Homosexuality, it's more akin to a debate about being right or left handed.
Though Con 'had a possible opportunity, if they had focused their arguments and sources more on possible harm of even minor nonacceptance.
I do have biases myself, due to my upbringing, norms of my society, and norms of my peers thus far in life. and (shrug).
. . . Still if Pro had argued Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
And Pro and Con had used the 'same arguments, I think I still would have voted Pro.
I voted against Mieky, in her debate on Being LGBTQ is a choice,
Because of the 'arguments given, just like this debate.
. . . Though I suppose if this debate title had been,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s not being a serial killer?
I might have voted Con.
"And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025."
- #74 Umbrellacorp
I'm not sure that societies acceptance of homosexuals is 'so 'far in the past.
I'll be turning 32 this year. . Hm, I recall in the past reading older archives of debates on Debate.org, lot of them were about homosexuality, in the military, being married.
Which of course, was because of various laws in America changing within my lifetime.
I generally take a more Nature 'and Nurture view of sexuality.
Though I don't deny some people can have more predisposition than others.
May be a problem for people 'completely open to sexualities, is that neither choice is 'wrong. So they are left to defend core identity and argue against indoctrination of a neutral choice.
'Unless they focused on the backlash.
But 'everyone 'indoctrinates.
(RFV Part 1)
Title, Being LGBTQ is a choice
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
If a person wanted to go against the spirit of the debate, they might have argued that some people are born with transgender body parts biologically, though it's not common I think.
Description
Gave people background on where Pro was coming from, motivation-wise.
Pro Round 1
Shows 'remarkable value of human will and choice.
But is rather short, and perhaps tuned to Pro's 'specific life experiences and personality.
. . .
'Can 'Choose, hm, I don't think it's really so 'easy for most people, to just 'change what they value.
Sure 'theoretically they could, but in practice they don't, and I think Nature and Nurture are explanatory for this.
. . . People only 'choose when certain conditions are met. It's not reasonable to expect 'everyone to make the same choices in life.
Some people for example, have a genetic weakness to alcohol, 'or a 'learned weakness.
They're not just going to choose to quit, even when it threatens their life.
They'll only choose to quit, when the right conditions are met, giving them great enough 'reason to.
I suppose people can accustom themselves over time into most choices, but eh, I don't think this is a debate on free will.
I 'suppose many people could come to like the same or opposite sex over time, but I don't think most would willingly make such a choice. Coercions doesn't 'feel much of a choice.
. . . And it's likely there are many people who through Nature or Nurture, have become 'solid in their preferences, that even attempting or coerced to, would not change their preferences.
Certainly 'enough people in history, where one can point to failed coercions.
Though again we come back to choice,
Some choices offered are no choices at all, say some might say.
Such as betraying family, many would sooner die.
. . . But 'some people 'do choose to betray family, and if conditions were a bit different, the refuser might have chosen such as well.
. . . Personally I tend to take a practical view of Free Will in life and Philosophy, and in such a sense Pro's argument rings with me. . . But Pros argument is awful short, and I expect has a 'lot of counterarguments from Con coming.
Con Round 1
I 'do think Nature plays a large roll in preferences.
I'm not convinced that attempts to change someone's orientation is ineffective and harmful.
Though I 'could be convinced that it 'can be for 'some individuals.
Some people 'are pretty hard wired to be the way they are.
"If it were a choice, we would expect people to switch their orientation easily"
I'm not trying to summon Dr Peterson, but I wonder, what do the two of you debaters 'mean by 'Choice?
Without 'links, I'm not inclined to give points for sources.
Though I cherry pick from sources myself on occasion,
I think 'ideally, one's opponent and voters should have the ability to check the context of what the sources say.
Interesting argument, on why choose a harder path in life.
Life 'is hard for some lifestyles in history.
I'm not sure it's 'unreasonable though. . . A core part yeah, but let's take anger for example, it can be pretty self harming, both to body and social relationships, yet a person might 'keep being angry and acting out.
. . 'Yet, one day 'choose to go to counseling, or read a self help book or something.
At this point though, my votes 'heavily leaning towards Con.
A person being Hard Wired, is a good argument. . . Hm, but then, a human is much 'more than other animals.
A dog is pretty hard wired to be a dog.
A 'human though, has the imagination to be more than many of their genetics, , , I 'suppose one could 'technically remove certain genes, if one had enough tech? Not sure that's a 'choice though.
And there 'is the problem of people 'deeply Hard Wired one way or another.
(RFV Part 2)
Pro Round 2
Well, people 'are born with Genetic Predispositions, sometimes quite strongly.
And Con 'does have a point, that sexual identity 'can be a strong core value in a person, that they are unlikely to change easily.
. . . Course, one can also be a racist, through genetics and experiences, many might argue their feelings of racism is a choice, and through actions they could feel less racist.
Core Habits 'are pretty strong in people though, difficult to change on a 'whim.
I think Con is arguing it's not just some jacket they can (easily) take off.
"once you choose to be LGBTQ I'm mean that's that."
Would that mean it 'was a choice, but can no 'longer be a choice?
Core values 'can form awful early, before a kids really 'thought much about their choice.
But I suppose a choice can be argued as an 'action. But then even a dog could make choices.
"Say a homosexual guys parents never show him a dude right every and he never experienced seeing or interacting with another man would he still be Homosexual?"
Maybe, some people 'are pretty Hard Wired genetically.
Hm, I'm not sure if 'choice, was the best word for this debate.
Con Round 2
Well, I argue it's a choice made off Genetics and Life Experiences.
"Discover who they are",
Eh, I 'am fond of poetry such as "I am the master of my fate" - Invictus
or
"You, I've mistaken for destiny
But the truth is, my legacy
Is not up to my genes
True, though the imprint is deep in me
It will always be up to me
Up to me"
- Genetic Opera
Con makes argument that it's not a 'simple 'easy choice.
I 'do think people can choose who they attracted to,
Except 'maybe the most Hard Wired of people.
I'm not highly convinced by the 'discovery argument, or the underlying orientation argument.
But it 'is an argument, and one that Con used somewhat in round 1.
Again, I'm big on 'both Nature and Nurture, I think how people live 'does effect who they are attracted to.
. . . Course I 'could be assuming too much malleability in humans, and assuming less humans Hard Wired, than what are. (Shrug)
Con makes a decent argument of music, people 'do have natural predispositions genetically.
Though one might argue that if the predisposition never branches out, it might atrophy off.
. . . Course, a person hardwired might be more likely to 'keep said predisposition.
Con is right that Pro did not address the 'why choose a hard life question.
Though Pro argued they 'don't have hard lives (Not true in many places)
Ah, I meant it as a joke.
It's from 8-Bit Theater, a webcomic about a party of psychopaths.
I'm a 'bit sorry I deleted it now, As you have replied.
But I figured other people might not find it as funny as me, and thought, 15 minute window to delete, probably no one read it.
But instant I click delete, heh, notification.
. . .
I'm not 'terribly serious about the topic,
Though I 'do find it interesting, and think there are argument to be made for seeking war.
I'm open to it being about any effects, be they Military, Political, Economic, Moral, or Other.
The Black Forest in Germany, is somewhere I've often thought would be interesting to see.
Certainly they are fine countries.
Varying in aspects of life's qualities that they excel in.
But still, I would choose America, for what it excels in, and I value, for me.
And 'by that, their military suffered and rusted some.
'Had Germany invaded in WW2, as was considered, the Swiss would not have held out as 'well, as if they 'had minded war.
And if Japan had not 'cut themselves off from the world, during the Sakoku Era, but instead had kept their weapons 'relevant and honed,
The Black Ships of Admiral Perry, might not have laid before Japan such threat, as to force open their ports to trade.
It 'is an interesting question, an interesting debate to read and think on.
Though Briguy21's rounds were short, I 'do think they hit upon important details of the debate.
I often 'forget the existence of that description describing the debate before one clicks on the debate, as one can't see it, once they have clicked on the debate.
Title
Well, Christianity 'does have his name in it.
Description
Spirit of the debate/honesty, can work well in a debate.
Umbrellacorp Round 1
There 'are a lot of 'different structures and doctrines, then what might have been around some 2000 years ago.
Though, I'd figure there were a lot of different ideas back then as well.
He'd see his 'influence, I imagine, even if it didn't always go the ways he might have chosen.
And I'd imagine that there were some key ideas he might have been pushing for back then, words he might have spoken 'just about the same back then, as they are preserved now.
"So, in Conclusion: Christianity’s core doctrines would be foreign toJesus."
Not sure I agree with that, The 'Core, I imagine, is 'always the Bible. Even much is added to it, differently interpreted, not 'completely followed.
. . . Well, he 'might not recognize some as his own,
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6335-would-jesus-recognize-christianity-as-his-if-he-were-alive-today
Though I think that's a bit obtuse, though I 'can understand the 'reason for him 'saying such.
People have 'still heard of him and his words, created and followed something 'similar.
I'm sure Jesus 'would preach for many changes, were he to return.
. . . Course there would be a difference between Jesus the Divine, and Jesus the Man.
That is to say if we are viewing him as a Divine Individual, or from an Atheistic Mindset as a more mundane human with interesting views on Morality, Ethics.
Maybe depends if he could acquire power or not.
As a normal human, it's hard to avoid realistic consequences and politics. Though one 'can choose to avoid such.
I think he'd have an easier time sticking to his guns if people did not believe he was truly Jesus.
"are they truly following Jesus-or just wearing his name?"
I think many people would 'like to, try to, 'dream to.
But for many people, it is only a dream, I think of religious individuals, who are yet outright criminals. Perhaps thinking they would 'like to put into action Christs teachings, but they love wealth, pleasure, power. Perhaps some expect Hell or Purgatory.
. . . Some people 'do though, more or less. And I must say when I 'meet them, or see their actions. I feel a bit unnerved and creeped out. By their Good Works, Altruisms, Efforts.
. . It's not that I 'never feel an urge to do good, not that I am 'never good, but I am not such a person as they.
Briguy21 Round 1
Mentions The gospel, argues that Christianity is not based on organizations but on individuality.
. . There 'are a lot of variations of it.
Umbrellacorp Round 2
Christianity 'is a big umbrella.
I think Briguy21 'did address the concerns about hierarchy, wealth, exclusion, and moral policing, though one could argue perhaps not in 'depth.
But they argue the 'core is The Gospel, and that many tenants 'are followed.
Though Umbrellacorp makes a point that they 'could be followed 'more.
I think 'some Christians 'are rather giving.
I suppose you could argue percentagewise more are not, than are.
But maybe that's hard to calculate. .
If we looked back to older times. . Could we calculate it then?
Did Jesus 'only consider a Christian, those who gave their all end everything?
Or could he understand that such was 'exceptional, even if he advocated for it?
Even back in his time, I'm sure there were people who followed him only 'partway, they still had jobs, nations. Could not 'fully give themselves.
Briguy21 Round 2
Points out the difficulty of definition.
. . .
Hm, I wonder if George Washington would recognize America as partly his, were he alive today?
. . . I imagine some of the 'really racist Founding Fathers might not, or only partially recognize it.
But then, America is unified as one under laws and force.
I think there's a difference between playing 'games of definitions,
And arguing that definitions 'matter at times 'to argue a subject.
Christianity is a bit 'nebulous. . . Disagreed a concept. Maybe.
Ask the poor giving Christian, if Christianity is defined as the big megachurches and hating others, might say no.
. . . Even the megachurch pastor might say no, though I might suspect 'that one lying.
I hate time travel and multiverse theory.
. . .
Hm, shoehorn. . . What if I imagined fact that humans have memories, memories change get forgotten/buried. I have existed once, and will again, unless X changes then I would exist as X. Would I change X aspect of myself, to prevent future X?
Also, title might have been better as 'Kill' baby Hitler.
Con Round 1
Descriptions says they pass the first round.
Pro Round 1
Argues less suffering overall if we kill baby Hitler.
Claims it is unlikely another psychotic rug rat would emerge.
I'm not 'so sure of that myself, I 'think antisemitism was pretty high back then, Germans pretty unhappy about WW1 terms, some countries wanting to get back together, Russia problem, Unstable Germany, some argue many atrocities came about from ground level decisions of soldiers and generals doing what they 'thought Hitler expected.
Hard to say.
I skimmed this earlier, and I recall Con made an argument valuing the future/present that one has. 'Might be enough, but they'd do better to back their arguement with arguement of possible worse future as well.
Con Round 2
Argues the importance of the existent, over the nonexistent.
Well, it is 'an argument.
And until debate is further expounded, it's a bit value this or that.
Pro Round 2
Man I hate time travel.
Pro makes a decent argument for valuing 'currently non existent lives.
Con Round 3
Con makes an interesting argument, in how many people will be effected, and 'not be.
It 'was a world war, lots of people moving about, meeting people they would not have met otherwise.
. . . Course, , Then people are, , Wouldn't there be some future with a maximum number of people created? Should we only aim for that future?
Con argument makes sense from purely self interested and accepting of 'current self and people, but then what is 'now?
I hate time travel.
. . .
I'm not going to vote, I think.
. . .
Personally, even if it improved the so called current timeline, I would not do anything to change it.
I'm selfish,
I like myself, even any bad stuff in my life, it has made me, me, and I accept myself, love myself.
. . . Also, time travel is confusing, and I don't believe in time travel to the past.
Are there any Government sponsored atrocities in the USA, that come to mind in particular?
I suppose there's been some times Government has come into conflict with new territories, such as Utah.
Various Company vs Labor conflicts that turned out poorly for labor usually (I assume).
War veterans wanting to be paid right after the Revolution.
Maybe The Black Panthers.
I find it interesting that you are for gun control to (?) degree,
Due to my making a general (Possibly erroneous) assumption about people from the US military being primarily Pro Gun.
What would you say influences your views on gun control?
I 'do think I could have done a better job with sources.
In expounding upon their implications, or what from them apply to my argument.
Various insurgencies for example, I might have done a better job in laying out exactly 'what from those instances, could occur similarly in America.
Why there were so 'many, I feel as though 'every time I make some factual claim I 'ought back it up with a source for proof.
It 'also feels a problem when there are 'so 'many conflicting studies and examples. Most all with different variables. It seemed to me the best method to include 'many, and try to argue what was common in all.
Also for Mexico, I had a hard time finding a source that talked explicitly at length about gun control in Colonial Mexico.
Debate Title
My 'first instinct, is that 'most current society would say no.
Course I imagine there is 'still many religious individuals not 'fond of homosexuality.
. . . What if I switched it, to Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
Well, then I have a reaction, a clear dislike, course one hears some cultures were pretty gay in history. Pederasty in ancient Greece. Course even 'current culture wouldn't like that much, because of power imbalance, underage thing.
Cultural norms eh?
. . . What else ought I compare sexuality then? Favorite color? Political views? Philosophy?
Arguably we try to change our kids already, school education/indoctrination and all that.
Current society probably wouldn't like a parent naming their kid Adolf and raising them as a Nazi. Though I still don't 'like that, I don't have the same knee jerk against it.
Freedom of family and all that. . . I 'would have a knee jerk against a family raising it's kid under obviously false conspiracy theories.
Course 'then one can get into a Theist and Atheist problem. Though I don't think it's 'so clear myself, it is to the hardliners on either side.
Well, I look forward to reading the debate anyhow.
Pro Round 1
Forfeit. Not 'ideal.
But Con seems to accept Pro's apology and excuse.
Con Round 1
Eh, love 'can come with conversion therapy. Try to 'convert someone out of drugs for instance. Or try to encourage someone on what one thinks is the moral right path in life.
Though I suppose people 'can be misguided sometimes.
Church groups who burn D&D books for instance, I'm not 'certain they're a path to the Devil. Though an argument 'could be made.
Morality is often confirmative.
Good argument though, on "increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
Including sources would help though.
. . . I'd imagine drug addicts can get those as 'well, when getting off drugs. So I'm not sure it's the 'best argument. But that depends on how Good/Neutral/Bad homosexuality ends up argued in the debate. Drugs, people usually see as bad, Homosexuality, many might say Neutral or equal Good to Heterosexuality.
'Some Ethics is about catering to social comfort, duty.
Depends which Ethics you ask though.
Con makes an alright argument, appealing to individuality and arguing that attempts to change a child’s sexuality could be harmful.
Pro Round 2
'Possible mistake, or Possible advantage.
When Pro say's "Coercive", something I realize, is the debate does not state how 'hard a parent has to try to prevent or change their child's homosexuality.
It's 'great you two are 'referencing stuff, but I think accessible sources are 'ideal.
Makes religious argument, but I think their 'strongest point in this round, has been in arguing for softer more accepting methods in changing their child's sexuality.
This currently has them winning in my book,
But I think Con can make a comeback.
. . . Just because a religion believes X, may make it 'understandable for them to encourage X, but X could still be a practice that 99% of current society finds immoral. Or in this case neutral, to people who view homosexuality neutrally.
So Con 'could push the view that while soft pushing for a child to change their sexuality isn't 'as bad as Coercive Conversion therapy, it 'still ends up as bad, just far 'less bad. No matter the parents motivations.
Con Round 2
Well, in a 'sense Con 'will have to use religion. But that's by the definitions of people who view even atheistic group ethics/morals/beliefs as a religion.
Con 'has been using Individuality in their argument, and that 'is often a shared group value.
I'm 'not highly convinced by Con's arguments that we cannot rewire identity.
Even as adults, government attempts such on us, soft 'or hard.
But as 'children 'especially, parents and governments take 'great interest in developing us towards their ideals.
If one wanted a positive outcome, then a level of acceptance 'would be ideal. Even if one disliked celibate monks.
Not a 'fan of all the sweetheart or honey, used by Con.
Con makes a point that conformity isn't 'everything.
But we 'do raise our kids not to be 'purely self interested, even if such might help them more.
We see a 'duty to society, and raise them not to steal, to care for others.
The 'existence of studies is great, but 'sources are needed, whether 'links or 'exactly what I need to Google.
I'm not 'fully convinced that trying to change someone's sexuality would 'always be harmful.
Fair number of bisexual by nature individuals, might not be too harmed by nurture, one way or the other.
Well, my vote is still with Pro.
Valuing personal identity 'so strongly, I don't think is working for Con, given how much society molds kids.
And a Value 'is Religion in a way. A group holds a Value Sacred, and by that pursues it. Doesn't matter if they 'call it religion or not. It's a normalized within that society value.
. . . I think Con would do better to argue homosexuality as not harmful or wrong and argue it a greater wrong to try to change someone's individuality, than to accept it. But accept softer means as 'less wrong than hard coercion.
It could 'still end up wrong, and per the debate title, count as a win.
Pro Round 3
"Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion." Pro Round 2
Well, doesn't 'really matter, and one could argue Pro meant religion is going to factor into the debate, being so world popular.
Means and Motivation VS Ends?
Subjective, Objective. . .
Pro makes a good argument with how much society at large is encouraging different sexualities, different moralities, beliefs.
Pro argue the existence of tough love.
Religious parents can 'still be 'wrong though.
Even if someone has the right 'motivations, and is influenced by their own past, they can 'still make the 'wrong decision (Subjectively/Objectively/Depending on One's Beliefs)
. . . Well, maybe.
Con 'did need to do more, to substantiate their high valuing of Individual Identity.
They also could have pushed harder at potential wrongs, even if slight, by the influencing of the parents.
As well as made arguments for homosexuality not being wrong. Never 'mind the parents motivations.
At this point, I'd give Pro a 'strong lead.
Con Round 3
Ah Con, I think you could have done 'so much better by going over and 'strengthening again your argument that 'any pushback or attempt to change their child's sexuality can have 'some negative effects.
Pro has some 'answers to that, such as acceptance, or arguing that pushback on 'any identities can have a negative effect.
But Con should have made stronger arguments normalizing Homosexuality as something not 'needing to be changed, unlike heavy drug use.
Round 1
"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_India
Does that 'really mean it allows gay marriage though?
People. . . 'Can't be treated all the same,
An adult and a child get treated differently by the law I'd assume?
I mean, in America for instance, it's that way.
We even have different 'prisons for adults and juveniles.
I'd agree, societies 'do change over time though.
And I 'suppose there have been many 'different ideas of marriage throughout the world and history.
Bit hard 'to change it though, when it has large implications,
Lot of cultures in the world, where women had a lot less right for instance, for being women.
Though some cultures were more equal that that.
. . . Still, in cultures 'with that, even progressive cultures, marriage often had a 'lot more laws tied into it, never mind the religion or culture part.
There would be a 'mass of laws I assume, based 'specifically around marriage as between a man and a woman.
Makes it 'tricky to change.
. . .
Course, lot of that changed in much of the world, more equal rights to women, less 'need for a number of the protection laws, or slavery laws, depending on culture and point in time.
Men and women being 'less defined for being 'men or 'women, and more defined for being 'people.
Though, I still think what one's sex is, plays a significant part in countries, even the one's focused on 'persons, rather than sex.
Nowadays, I think marriage 'is much more a social contract between two people, in some parts of the world.
But that's just my view as an American, mish mash or cultures, almost 'excessive amount of Individual Freedom here.
. . .
Round 2
Eh, 'Natural, is a funny word.
Rabies for example, 'occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
Natural also applies to 'Society,
Even 'if humans have many different forms of society,
'Natural to one society, is not always Natural to another society.
Not 'regular, that is to say.
For some people, marriage is 'primarily about sharing genetics and fortunes with another.
Bible for instance has,
English Standard Version
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/25-5.htm
Can you imagine if the brother had married a man, then died?
Just doesn't 'sound right.
It's that recognition again, of 'differences, between the sexes.
Purposes and abilities,
Course someday if science creates artificial wombs, what will one do then?
. . . And I suppose one could argue there are 'already alternate solutions in modern society such as surrogate mothers. That past laws might have not accounted for.
Not that people apply all Biblical laws unto themselves anyhow, as they often talk about 'other 'older country laws, history books not always prescriptive, but eh, lot of different takes, I'm sure.
I don't really know what India and various parts of India believe,
But I think same sex marriage has greatly changed American culture.
Course it's one of many changes. Born of, beside, and birther of.
People 'say don't worry about the slippery slope,
But so much of history occurs in 'tiny changes we don't notice,
It's like our hair or face slowly aging, hard to see day by day, but it's there.
It's not 'always the 'sudden revolutions.
I think you voted for me by mistake.
You can copy your RFV vote, delete your vote, and recast it, or if too much time has passed, you can ask a Mod to delete it, that you can recast it.
I still think if something can 'theoretically be resolved,
That 'can be another way of saying it 'can be resolved.
Or if one thinks a problem might be solved in the future.
Suppose years ago in some medieval period for instance, someone said, resolved that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
Suppose someone offered up the idea of hot air balloons or gliders, perhaps they could not 'currently 'build such, or construct and explain 'every detail of a design.
But a rough outline would be enough for me to doubt the claimed resolution that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
I also don't quite understand the vote 'reasons for legibility and sources.
Still, thanks for reading and voting on the debate.
I'm not sure what India would look like today if Britain had never exploited it as they did.
Possibly some other nation would have exploited it, but assuming that no nation exploited it.
I don't 'think India was 'too unified. Various factions, Princes, Warlords, different cultures?
Course, people don't always 'like being unified.
The Industrial Revolution, took place roughly between 1750 - 1900, I assume wouldn't have been good for India, but I'd think British exploitation and control of economics and crops, made the situation worse.
The Bengal Famine of 1943, wasn't 'completely Churchills fault.
But there's still argument for the mismanagement, failings, and lack of feeling by the British main government.
Pro has a point about a number of the 'improvements, being made for avaricious purposes, such as the rail system, and education.
Indian Civil Service has to be taken in London, I think.
One could argue it is 'possible many changes in Indian society might not have taken place, without Britain's role in India, but alternate timelines can be hard to prove likely.
And even assuming that some cultural changes brought about by forced law or exposure to British culture.
Such as Changes to India Caste System or The practice of Sati.
Even 'possible benefits such as railroads and a more unified India.
Hard to argue Britain did not do so 'accidentally in the search for profit, or as phony 'excuse for their exploitation.
. . . Also possible some people like/d some aspects of the culture that has changed.
. . . Probably some good changes, some bad. . . Subjectively.
I don't think I've ever heard of a token/symbolic/heartfelt attempt at reparations by Britain towards India.
Might be some artifacts in the British 'Museum that would be useful as in being given in part of ceremonial apology.
. . . I'm not sure what form of useful 'function reparations ought take, in 'any case of reparations.
. . .
All this said, I'm not well read on India, Britain, their histories or interactions.
@NobodyInParticular
Ah, Forgot to use a couple thoughts in debate, ah well.
"A slave isn't a slave unless it possesses the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend the condition of slavery."
- Vilenjji, Lost and Found by Alan Dean Foster
Course, in the book, the various aliens abducted from their planet disagree.
. . .
And,
Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia
. . .
Just want to note again, that my position and arguments in the debate, are not necessarily the views I 'hold.
I was glad for the opportunity to debate this subject,
One of my earliest debates was whether, This was the Best of All Possible Worlds?
I was inspired after reading Candide.
Went worse than this one,
Though I suppose this one also differenced in focusing on animals other than humans.
While usually such a debate might focus on humans primarily.
I'm still not wild about my performance in this debate,
But it was a push for me to read a number thoughts online,
Such as Descartes, Reincarnation, glanced at C. S. Lewis, Charles Darwin.
I do wonder if you redo the debate though,
What might differ, with a different opponent.
@NobodyInParticular
Carp, well that was a useless fishing cast (For me) (Reincarnation)
Not something I believe in, not something I thought was mainstream in Abrahamic Religion, but I thought there was a chance of some offshoot section of people in the Abrahamic faith who believed in it.
Closest 'I see right this moment is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah,
But I'm not seeing any good arguments or citation of old writings I can use.
Hm, there 'is epigenetic inheritance,
Course on another hand how can you reincarnate through your child while they're alive?
And even if it was some 100 generations later that you supposedly reincarnated, just seems 'tacked 'on to the scientific explanation.
And even the scientific explanation one can argue isn't so much 'memories like thinking back to some moment of your life lived (I think).
"Environmental factors experienced in one generation can impact the behavior of unborn offspring in mammals (Fig. 1C). For example, environmental stresses such as high exposure to predators reduces maternal care in female rats, as measured by licking/grooming and arched-back nursing (LG-ABN; Fig. 1C) [75]. Pups reared under conditions of low maternal protection and LG-ABN are more fearful and more sensitive to environmental stresses. These pups exhibit less LG-ABN with their offspring than normal pups, even in the absence of environmental stressors and this behavior is passed on to future generations (Fig. 1C) [75]."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4072033/
"Of great interest is that they provide a possible explanation of the frequent observation in human societies that adverse environments acting in one generation appear to influence the behavior and disease risk of subsequent generations. As a consequence, the transgenerational inheritance of stress pathology"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014488611000239?via%3Dihub
People 'do use nature or natural in a vague general way though.
Nature sometimes operating in a way that brings benefits,
While going against one's nature can lead to errors and discomfort.
I find humans interesting in how 'much we've changed our environments and behaviors, and how quickly.
Some ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, I think result in more happiness and life for us.
Other ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, actually end up 'worse for us, I think.
If one believes in the hunter gatherer theory,
Well, farming sure allows us to grow a lot of food.
But 'sitting at a desk all day, doesn't seem as healthy as moving about and socializing.
@NobodyInParticular
I don't advocate for cruelty to animals, generally speaking.
It's not. . . easy, to change my way of life, whether it is eating meat, or plants.
I mention plants, because many animals die in farming as well.
My talk of lesser animals 'also discomforts me,
Because I've been reading a book on slavery recently.
Ah well.
Some animals are more equal than others route, I seem to be going in this debate.
@Self
I hope I don't sound pretentious, as though I understand the topic well, I 'don't, but one 'learns the unfamiliar by 'attempting it at times.
Forcing oneself to read, study, get feedback on one's thoughts.
. . .
The canst, might be a bit pretentious. But I 'like archaic English sometimes.
Hm, people don't always like videos and style, but I do,
And these aren't 'long, or even 'required videos to watch.
Don't feel a need to respond to all of this, as I know the debate is still ongoing, just some idle thought on my part.
Or any unless you want to of course.
The problem I see is that there are so 'many minorities, ought every minority have a month?
Or a large focus on X individuals from X minority who have succeeded?
Again, lot of minorities.
I can appreciate people of X group taking a focus on their particular history and accomplishments.
. . . And I 'can see an argument in educating ignorant individuals who think X people are incapable of accomplishments, even though education, wealth and opportunity play such vital roles.
But I also think America's history is 'full of mistaken thinking and errors, that we can now see in hindsight.
I don't remember school or history class all that well, from my 'memory, it 'was pretty shallow. I wouldn't say 'whitewashed, but butter scraped over too much bread.
. . .
Skimming over what I've already read in that book I mentioned,
I found it interesting after the Revolution how laws on Manumissions and Entail and Primogeniture changed,
Manumissions changing to state law and the view that one ought be able to do as they like with their property, increasing State Rights Ideals in southern states.
Entail and Primogeniture, allowing for slavery to spread south and west easier.
Hudgins v. Wrights,
Judge St. George Tucker
I know people argue against the slippery slope in regards of laws, but so 'much of history and law 'is the slippery slope to my view.
Sure there are huge revolutions sometimes, but even those are made of many small parts coming together, many small steps until the destination is arrived at.
The book also talked about of the bad conditions of slaves, and events they endured, blacks serving in the military both Colonial and British, escapes, hypocrisy of slave owners, how vital the system was to the South.
. . .
I do think there is a difference in outcome, based in how information is received.
Theoreticals don't impact as much as experience, maybe.
Some people argue against 'style in debate, but style impacts how something is received.
Nixon vs Kennedy, radio vs tv, though one 'could argue different types of people listened to the radio than people who watched TV.
It's why Pro Life individuals wish for people to view ultrasound of their fetus before choosing abortion,
Course some people argue such can be badgering, fine line, or a spectrum maybe.
While one side of convincing is to fully expose one to a view,
Another is to sanitize and view dispassionately.
Weirdly, I think 'either can lead to atrocity.
Slaves as an example, by style and exposure, one can fire up a panicked fear crazed mob,
By Sanitization and Rational Self interest, one can ignore the suffering of others and focus on supposed necessity.
I've gone to the library a couple times this week,
Trying to change my schedule, so I stop staying up all night,
Hopefully it'll stick eventually.
But, the book I picked off the shelf the last couple times has been,
The Internal Enemy Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 By Alan Taylor
Some of it I know 'roughly, but it 'is interesting to get a more in depth view of the topic.
And it 'does depict a lot of founding Americans ba- honestly, which for them is a bad light.
I 'do think black history should be taught in schools, and not just skipped over when certain time periods and locations of America are being covered.
I also find it interesting politically/legally, how one can see-
Well, I'll say more in an hour or two, I found a part of that book interesting on attempted legislation and then how the legislator changed their stance for political reasons.
History,
I'd imagine is taught, per what one is.
America as an example,
Has a 'clear, recent and documented founding.
Colonization, Rebellion and Independence, Ideals and Values clear spoken and defined (Kind of).
Compare that with someplace such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan.
Is founding their furthest memory of their people, or their 'current regime and people?
I'll assume 'current regime, else American History would focus 'more on times before The War of Independence.
Though I'm sure previous regimes and accomplishments are still important.
Seems hard to 'avoid speaking of Black history, when speaking of America and it's founding,
Not to mention how many 'current laws and policies are effected by it.
So many laws 'carefully worded, during Independence, out of Southern fear of their slaves having some right to liberty.
The Civil War's effects on States Rights, on Birth Citizenship.
Civil Rights Movement, Effect on Class/Caste? in America.
. . .
Not that Blacks are the 'only ones of discussion in all these events, 'nor that their actions as individuals/Vague Group has always been ideal and good.
. . . I don't think teaching black history, or more black history is wrong.
Though I think it might be an error to teach Black History Month or have a class focus a semester or something on Black History.
. . I think I prefer history by time period and location, there are many groups in America, at every point, exerting influence.
Well, I 'have to,
I 'look for information based on my imagination and logic,
One comes up with an untested theory, then 'ideally tests or reads other people's tests on the subject.
I mean it 'could be that animals have no idea or hunger the opposite sex, and just hump everything.
But then why do various male animals compete and literally butt heads and horns with other males, in order to gain the females?
Sure some animals engage in homosexual behaviors,
But other times if some male is head of the pack of females,
If some other male approaches him in a homosexual advance,
I can imagine the alpha male just responding with irritation, anger, violence, and killing, defending their instinct value to monopolize the females over some homosexuals advances on them.
Mantises have pheromones and such I assume,
So I further assume they can tell male from female,
If a female mantis approaches another female mantis for sex,
Is that what female mantises usually 'look for,
Or maybe the second female mantis just goes straight to murdering and eating the homosexual female?
I don't know, I've not studied it.
What I do doubt is that studies or information about homophobic behaviors in animals to be popular with homosexuals and supporters of homosexuals.
. . .
I don't have a 'certainty on my view of homophobia in other animals,
I've not studied it.
Bit subjective anyhow in definition maybe.
And I don't mean to push my view on others.
But it's not a view I'm center agnostic unknown on,
I've leanings of imagination, theory, and logic.
Advice that seems solid to me, is get a job, 'most any job. Maybe.
Keep track of where you got it, your employers name and number, for future job references.
Earlier you start, earlier you're done, if you plan the future right and save your money. Maybe.
For most people, saved money's always good to have.
And lot of people are creatures of habit,
Get into the habit of not working, it can be easy to keep not working.
Get into the habit of working, easier to keep working.
Anything you want to do?
Any interests you have?
Interested in following any family footsteps?
Any straightforward paths available to you?
Personally, I lazed about, rotted and decayed for a couple years after High School,
Then joined the Navy for 5 years, saved up some money,
After getting out, I rotted for a couple years,
Got a job stocking the freezer section at a supermarket for a couple years,
Then after my Dad broke his arm, left that job for a bit, and I spent an 'irritating amount of time visiting him.
But after he healed up some, I finally was able to get away back to my own place. Except after a few months he asked me to visit again, but 'now I'm away again, back in my own place. No job currently, rotting again, maybe rot the whole summer before trying something again. Random job or college maybe.
Military was annoying, but paid well.
Grocery job, was nice working at night, pay was bad though, and they kept trying to raise my hours. And they never hired enough people, not to mention the turnover rate.
I think people sometimes have different ideas in their mind, by what they mean by nature or natural.
Rabies for example, occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
. . .
That said, I'm sure there are various homosexual organisms in nature,
And some organisms that change sex.
"Why yes?"
Is, I think a fair point.
I can't say I've thought on it deeply,
I 'do look forward to reading the debate.
Though I still hold to my, The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection. View.
. . . Well, humans 'do 'conflate and anthropomorphize. . . Movements, Nations, Groups. . .
I might say to someone from Britain, we still remember when you burned our White House down.
Of course it was different 'individuals from the past,
But by genetics, history, and law, the past gets connected to the present.
Heh, funnily, I'm not sure one 'necessarily even needs to 'be that connected.
Suppose we met some aliens from outer space,
Why, one would not need to be the same ethnicity of Watt, just the same species, to take pride by association.
Heh, and then the alien meets some being from another dimension,
Well, you know what 'we of 'this dimension take pride in having accomplished?
One's ancestors 'surviving 'despite all the mosquitos, and evolving sickle cells, sounds kind of metal,
Sounds something to take pride in, pride in one's ancestors, in possessing their same dna, pride in their survival of such.
You are my pride and joy, sounds more a parent than a child,
But there are still children ashamed or proud of their parents.
Why not extend to others of one's group?
When one's school football team wins, even if oneself did not play, why 'not take pride in being connected to those individuals?
Same with ethnicity, why 'not?
Pride by association.
'They did it, 'We did it, 'I did it.
Close enough.
I'm not sure why I need to 'work for something, to feel pride in it?
The 'reason is the 'having and/or connection.
. . .
Heh, I'm pretty Tribalistic in my views.
I think Humans have a tendency to live in groups, Societies, Clumps.
Loving and valuing most, those 'closest in our group, and to ourselves.
What kind of human values a stranger more than family?
Values an 'Outgroup more than their own 'Ingroup?
Well. . . There are many 'kinds values, many kinds of groupings, and I can appreciate a person valuing truth or kindness, to all persons.
. . . But I'd rather exalt my own Ingroup, to an extent.
I think their well being depends on being good people to others, so I 'would encourage that.
It's not 'just humans though,
Wolves hunting together, Birds of a feather flying together, Pods of whales swimming together.
Just nature and game theory, one builds pacts with the group closest to oneself, sometimes to the cost of others, but at times that's the cost of being alive and living well.
There was a theory, Suggested in the 1990's called Dunbars Number, Which suggested a 'limit, To the number of people we can maintain a stable social relationship with.
ETHNIC PRIDE
I 'enjoy taking pride in my ancestors,
Even if there's luck to it.
If I was fishing and happened to catch a bigger fish, I'd take pride in having come into such a possession.
Course one can argue that took effort,
But eh, you also say 'collective accomplishments.
My ancestor did the work, and I'm proud of them.
. . . Other than pleasure, I 'do think there are other reasons why pride in genetics can be valuable.
It can inspire people to 'safeguard their ancestors' achievements, to be 'worthy of them, to not as an heir dishonor them in life.
I like my dirty blonde hair well enough, take pride in 'having it, though other hair colors are nice too.
Title and Description,
Hm, I know 'nothing of Krishna.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 1
Detachment to Outcome, yet stay true to Duty.
Balance and Moderation in Life.
The Mind is a Powerful Tool.
Wisdom of Krishna and Potential Benefit of their Teachings.
Con Round 1
Suggests we can gauge the greatness of a mentor by the number of followers.
Not sure I agree, new ideas come about it life sometimes, just starting with 'one person, compared to 'everyone else in the world.
I 'do think there is value in using the crowd as a gauge, but it's a value a I take with salt and other considerations.
Con states that Pro said that "existence is irrelevant."
I can't seem to find where Pro said that, exact quotes can be valuable, partially due to Ctrl F on the keyboard.
"Religion isn’t make believe, but the context behind it?" - Pro Round 1
Alas the meaning of this line escape me.
I think Con twists, Detachment here, the way Pro stated it, was more about accepting some outcomes are beyond control.
Con's arguments for Jesus appear to be,
Depend on God, this 'sounds kind of bad to me, but I assume it is meant to take God as a rock, an anchor, something to take strength in and continue to try one's best. Trusting that this world and the after is for the best.
Spirituality, before physical comfort.
Surrendering to God’s truth, acceptance of something 'more than us, not getting too caught up in self pride and our 'own works.
RFV Thoughts
Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Debate is still just starting out, I'd vote it a tie, with Pro a bit ahead, due to more in depth description of benefits.
Con will need to argue 'why spirituality and God are to be valued and Wisdom.
Con makes 'some headway arguing number of followers, though not much. It could use a source and a compare and contrast. Also has flaw of what is being judged is 'Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 2
I'm not 'loving the dive into 'powers, as a voter I'm more interested in their teachings.
Though debate 'is who is a better spiritual mentor.
Something of value in the debate, might be to define what is 'meant by spirituality.
Pro gave some very useful lessons in round 1, but I think they'd do good to further identify them as 'spiritual lessons.
Pro points out the 'many languages that Krishna's teachings have been translated into. But same with my reason of being unimpressed by Con's argument of number of followers, I am not impressed by number of translated languages. One can get more followers, or more translations, focus should be on what in the teachings makes it 'likely to get more followers or translations.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
"A big foundation of wisdom is emotional intelligence." Pro Round 2
Describes various aspects of applications.
Claims Jesus is more vague than Krishna, in how each teaches lessons.
Argues Krishna's been around longer and thus 'assumably effected more people.
But again, I don't think that's a core of this debate.
Pro argues Krishna has spread to more people and cultures, and argues this
Pro is arguing Wisdom, Communication, and positive Impact.
The sources, judging by their names, seem more basic primers/information to the unlearned than sources 'proving any claims of Pro or claims over Con.
Con Round 2
I'm doubtful of the importance of a Spiritual Mentor 'existing,
Unless debate was about which is the 'true religion of reality,
But this debate could be who is a better mentor Obi Wan or Qui Gon JInn,
By that I am not arguing either is not real, just that I don't see their existing or not as important for the debate,
. . . Though I suppose one could argue what if they were in 'person teaching us, eh, just feels a sidebar to me.
Con argues the importance of Spirituality in the hereafter.
Which 'is important in debate, per 'what 'is 'spirituality.
Con argues Jesus words impacted faster, thus proving potential value.
I 'can see their argument of real vs man made, though I'm still not convinced it will have huge impact on debate.
I think Con mistakes Languages for Followers in Pros argument.
"blue skinned baby" Eh, not conduct hits, but I don't think such talk usually 'helps one's side in a debate.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
I think Con makes Good arguments for Spirituality, ah wait, hm,
'If Christianity is true, then there 'would be a lot of Wisdom and potential of positive impact, in the importance placed in the hereafter,
But I think Con is neglecting arguments of the here and now in terms of Wisdom and Potential of positive impact.
Both sides seem a bit tied in Communication to me.
RFV Thoughts,
I'd still give a tie, but edge to Pro, though only one round left, part of tie is due to both debaters having possible different approaches to the debate, and the three items being pursued.
Pro Round 3
I'm not sure Con 'dislikes the setup, but that they may be approaching it differently.
Pro makes decent argument on the difficulty of proof, or at least of 'convincing people that Jesus or Krishna are Truly Divine and Existent.
Pro 'does focus a lot of the debate on 'worldly matters though.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Pro argues the Communication and Potential for Positive Impact, though I don't think myself that one 'has to be Christian to take useful Game Theory from it.
Still, Con is the one, not I who needs to argue such.
And Con 'has focused their arguments more in the hereafter. Which I don't think is 'terrible angle, but I'm not sure it was as 'good an angle in more regular interpretation of debate and description.
Pro argues the difficulty of face value words, and connects physical conditions with spiritual conditions.
Argues for Pragmatism, and what can be Observed.
I have not really been giving points to 'either side for the personal abilities of Krishna or Jesus, though I 'suppose such 'could play a factor.
. . . If one read the debate as which individual teaching you to your face, as opposed to reading about what they taught.
Pro argues against Con Communication argument, that tech and force could have been cause for influence.
Argues longevity of Krishna thought, is more proof towards their value, than being pushed by external individuals and groups.
Unless Con has something 'really good, I'm thinking Communication will go to Pro.
Argues against Cons arguments for devotion being Wisdom or Potential for Good.
Con Round 3
You're not 'wrong to argue the way you do, but will it convince people other than Christians?
And I 'do think the argument of which mentor is 'real has value, but that it might be a difficult argument to pull off.
Con makes arguments on the power/value of the concept/truth of the hereafter. Upon those who believe it, and it's fair to say that 'many of the Bibles teachings are of man as of 'more than this mortal coil.
Still, religions 'do pop up now and then.
It's a 'big. . . Field though, why religions occur, why some 'stay longer than others.
Con makes decent argument that first isn't best,
But I still think Pros argument of how long the teachings have lasted, show their value.
Though Con 'could compare and contrast numbers of 'current believers, Christianity has been around a long time too,
Though as Pro argued, there are possible reasons such as force for such.
Early Christians 'did make progress into the hearts of people and nations 'before they 'had nations and armies.
"blue skinned baby." Doesn't win points Con.
Con, "Well don’t you have to be Hindu to follow Krishna?"
Eh, I don't think so, nor Christian to follow 'some Christian wisdoms.
If Pro hadn't made the argument that you 'don't need to be Hindu to follow Krishna, I'd slide Communication back to a tie, but Pro 'did make such an argument, so Pro still get's communication,
Though it was 'close, due to Con's argument of older not meaning better.
"cowardly pussy’s" Eh, I'm still not counting it as a conduct hit, but certain words 'still effect perception of your argument as a whole.
"what it means to be Christian"
I think even when Christians act contrary, such as war and nationalism against other nations,
They still often have an understanding they are not being terribly 'Christian by such an action.
I 'do think you have an argument, of masses of Christians holding to parts of the Bible, or later interpretations of the Bible, as basis for their harsh actions and often hate against others.
Though I am 'still unsure of statistics.
I would not be 'terribly surprised if you won,
Though 'something 'still gives me a feeling that Pro winning is more likely.
I 'do hope you get more votes and feedback on your debate, and that they are fair.
@NoOneInParticular
I 'do love my father, recognize he had a bad environment growing up.
I 'am thankful of the 'good actions and memories we have had together.
I recognize, that he has 'given his kids a 'lot in effort, time, money.
I recognize that he has humanistic qualities and actions towards people 'other than his family as well, at times.
Even if he has flaws,
Generally 'all humans do, I expect.
Ach! I 'always seem to forget that thing is there.
I did not even think of it until you mentioned it in post #18.
"Judging on what christians of any branch (catholic, evangelical, orthodox, etc.) derive their beliefs from today, and how they have built their religion since jesus died. The holy scriptures, church hierarchy, etc. Always, assuming that jesus actually existed!!!"
- The short description, Viewable 'before, but not after clicking on the debate.
. . . I'm still not convinced that it greatly changes the debate though.
The scriptures, hierarchy, ect 'still exist in many different forms. And I 'still think there is the difficulty of tying all of Christianity together under one label of flawed structure.
"Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?" - #18
No, I'm sure that there exist people who one could argue have different Christian Ideals, than the Ideals Christ might have advocated for.
. . .
Modern Christianity, I 'still think it's an interesting topic, but that more effort was needed by you to clearly define and group all or most of modern Christianity and Christians as such.
And further to argue it as corrupt from the teachings of Jesus.
I don't really 'pay much attention to Christianity myself, other than occasionally reading bits and pieces of it.
I 'am an Atheist, but was 'somewhat raised to be a Christian.
. . My brothers, my sister and I, were all given names from the Bible.
As children, our mother read the Bible to us some, taught us to pray.
As a child, I prayed that a man from the news I viewed as evil, would find his way back to goodness and God,
Though the man was greatly despised by Americans at that time, my mother praised me for such thoughts, and encouraged such as being what it 'means to be Christian. Loving even one's enemies.
. . . As we grew older though, such petered away, she had to start working,
My father worked as well, as a teacher but had summers off, bills were still an issue.
. . .
I cannot recall my father speaking of the Bible or Christianity, except when I was in my 30s, my father is still alive, doing alright.
. . .
I don't mean to bring up my childhood, just, people have biases, viewpoints differently colored. Many people had worse childhoods than mine, my dad among them.
. . . But he was frequently an unpleasant father to have, though he loved his children, he was controlling of 'any choices, would emotionally bully his kids, 'minor physical 'actions of discipline or forcing behaviors and actions.
When with my sister one time, he returned a wallet to the police 'after taking the money out.
. . .
My 'mother, after finding a hundred dollar bill on the grocery aisle floor, took it to the lost and found,
She worked as a park ranger at a campground, and would 'regularly spend her own time and money, helping people down on their luck.
She gives to charity, gives money to random people on the street holding signs.
My eldest brother is much like her, and I've said this elsewhere, but it 'creeps 'me 'out.
That amount of altruism.
. . .
Yeah, one reads about bad 'groups of Christians at times, churches, groups, individuals.
But there is good too, I couldn't say how much.
. . .
Yes, the debate is to be judged on 'Yours and Pros arguments,
But it's hard for me to completely avoid bias,
And what 'you see as Christianity, might not be what 'I see.
"Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!"
- #18
I think you pointed out 'part of Christianity, and assert all or a majority of it to 'be such.
While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian.
While I 'do think Pros arguments could have addressed more, and gone more in depth.
I think they hit upon a core in the debate, what does it 'mean to be a Christian?
They apply the yardstick of following Jesus, and view it through a very 'personal lens.
Not viewing Christianity as some of the various organizations or churches, but the people.
I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people.
There 'are arguments and statistics for such, but they were not obvious to me when I read the debate.
You 'do quote the Bible a 'number of times, but arguably that goes towards the same point of how Christians should be good loving people, not hateful.
Pro makes the 'same argument.
To get my vote, I think you would have needed stronger evidence and argument that the Churches and Organizations 'were Christianity.
. . I 'can't quite put my finger on it, but there's 'something in the debate that puts me out of kilter.
Christianity isn't a 'single entity, with clear cut behaviors and actions.
Though such vague definitions 'can readily enough identify a group, I think I needed more argument of why Christianity was better recognized by hate and greed, than love and following Jesus.
. . . .
"Now if I had known the debate was based on mega cathedrals and people trying to get rich of the idea of Christianity I would not have accepted because I agree with you. But your debate title is Christianity and I have proved that Jesus judges Christianity from individual hearts." - Pro Round 2
If you had defined the debate in the description as Jesus will not recognize mega cathedrals as his successors, I think Pro would have argued differently,
But even your arguments, I don't think 'quite take that tact exactly.
Pro states they argued against the title of the debate, and much of your gist/meaning of your arguments. I think.
I 'definitely enjoyed debating you.
It is an odd topic,
But the idea interested me.
@Mieky
I'm pretty sure 'some gay people, have wanted to not be gay.
Some gay Christians, I imagine, have not wanted to be gay.
But it's not something people are always able to change so easily, I think. If 'ever in some cases.
@NoOneInParticular
The 'future might end up being blasted weird though,
The more and more we're able to change our bodies and brains with technology.
"But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires."
- #75 Umbrellacorp
I'd say the debate focused on the question of ethics indoctrination and intent.
Which Pro managed to limit the degree of harm of such, in their arguments.
The Homosexuality part could have been replaced with a 'number of adjectives, and I 'think the debate would have been mostly unchanged.
I think arguing 'why the activity was ethical or nonethical, would have helped 'either side. But 'neither did so much.
Pro focused on the right/expectation of parents to pass their values, and the existence of soft indoctrination.
Con focused on attacking indoctrination. . And they 'might have managed it, if they focused more on the possible harm of indoctrinating heterosexuality upon homosexual individuals.
But I view Con as wasting 'way too much time on attacking indoctrination as a concept, religion, and stating that being homosexual is fine.
. . As it stands in the debate, with neither side giving argument of Heterosexuality or Homosexuality, it's more akin to a debate about being right or left handed.
Though Con 'had a possible opportunity, if they had focused their arguments and sources more on possible harm of even minor nonacceptance.
I do have biases myself, due to my upbringing, norms of my society, and norms of my peers thus far in life. and (shrug).
. . . Still if Pro had argued Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
And Pro and Con had used the 'same arguments, I think I still would have voted Pro.
I voted against Mieky, in her debate on Being LGBTQ is a choice,
Because of the 'arguments given, just like this debate.
. . . Though I suppose if this debate title had been,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s not being a serial killer?
I might have voted Con.
"And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025."
- #74 Umbrellacorp
I'm not sure that societies acceptance of homosexuals is 'so 'far in the past.
I'll be turning 32 this year. . Hm, I recall in the past reading older archives of debates on Debate.org, lot of them were about homosexuality, in the military, being married.
Which of course, was because of various laws in America changing within my lifetime.
I generally take a more Nature 'and Nurture view of sexuality.
Though I don't deny some people can have more predisposition than others.
May be a problem for people 'completely open to sexualities, is that neither choice is 'wrong. So they are left to defend core identity and argue against indoctrination of a neutral choice.
'Unless they focused on the backlash.
But 'everyone 'indoctrinates.
(RFV Part 1)
Title, Being LGBTQ is a choice
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
If a person wanted to go against the spirit of the debate, they might have argued that some people are born with transgender body parts biologically, though it's not common I think.
Description
Gave people background on where Pro was coming from, motivation-wise.
Pro Round 1
Shows 'remarkable value of human will and choice.
But is rather short, and perhaps tuned to Pro's 'specific life experiences and personality.
. . .
'Can 'Choose, hm, I don't think it's really so 'easy for most people, to just 'change what they value.
Sure 'theoretically they could, but in practice they don't, and I think Nature and Nurture are explanatory for this.
. . . People only 'choose when certain conditions are met. It's not reasonable to expect 'everyone to make the same choices in life.
Some people for example, have a genetic weakness to alcohol, 'or a 'learned weakness.
They're not just going to choose to quit, even when it threatens their life.
They'll only choose to quit, when the right conditions are met, giving them great enough 'reason to.
I suppose people can accustom themselves over time into most choices, but eh, I don't think this is a debate on free will.
I 'suppose many people could come to like the same or opposite sex over time, but I don't think most would willingly make such a choice. Coercions doesn't 'feel much of a choice.
. . . And it's likely there are many people who through Nature or Nurture, have become 'solid in their preferences, that even attempting or coerced to, would not change their preferences.
Certainly 'enough people in history, where one can point to failed coercions.
Though again we come back to choice,
Some choices offered are no choices at all, say some might say.
Such as betraying family, many would sooner die.
. . . But 'some people 'do choose to betray family, and if conditions were a bit different, the refuser might have chosen such as well.
. . . Personally I tend to take a practical view of Free Will in life and Philosophy, and in such a sense Pro's argument rings with me. . . But Pros argument is awful short, and I expect has a 'lot of counterarguments from Con coming.
Con Round 1
I 'do think Nature plays a large roll in preferences.
I'm not convinced that attempts to change someone's orientation is ineffective and harmful.
Though I 'could be convinced that it 'can be for 'some individuals.
Some people 'are pretty hard wired to be the way they are.
"If it were a choice, we would expect people to switch their orientation easily"
I'm not trying to summon Dr Peterson, but I wonder, what do the two of you debaters 'mean by 'Choice?
Without 'links, I'm not inclined to give points for sources.
Though I cherry pick from sources myself on occasion,
I think 'ideally, one's opponent and voters should have the ability to check the context of what the sources say.
Interesting argument, on why choose a harder path in life.
Life 'is hard for some lifestyles in history.
I'm not sure it's 'unreasonable though. . . A core part yeah, but let's take anger for example, it can be pretty self harming, both to body and social relationships, yet a person might 'keep being angry and acting out.
. . 'Yet, one day 'choose to go to counseling, or read a self help book or something.
At this point though, my votes 'heavily leaning towards Con.
A person being Hard Wired, is a good argument. . . Hm, but then, a human is much 'more than other animals.
A dog is pretty hard wired to be a dog.
A 'human though, has the imagination to be more than many of their genetics, , , I 'suppose one could 'technically remove certain genes, if one had enough tech? Not sure that's a 'choice though.
And there 'is the problem of people 'deeply Hard Wired one way or another.
(RFV Part 2)
Pro Round 2
Well, people 'are born with Genetic Predispositions, sometimes quite strongly.
And Con 'does have a point, that sexual identity 'can be a strong core value in a person, that they are unlikely to change easily.
. . . Course, one can also be a racist, through genetics and experiences, many might argue their feelings of racism is a choice, and through actions they could feel less racist.
Core Habits 'are pretty strong in people though, difficult to change on a 'whim.
I think Con is arguing it's not just some jacket they can (easily) take off.
"once you choose to be LGBTQ I'm mean that's that."
Would that mean it 'was a choice, but can no 'longer be a choice?
Core values 'can form awful early, before a kids really 'thought much about their choice.
But I suppose a choice can be argued as an 'action. But then even a dog could make choices.
"Say a homosexual guys parents never show him a dude right every and he never experienced seeing or interacting with another man would he still be Homosexual?"
Maybe, some people 'are pretty Hard Wired genetically.
Hm, I'm not sure if 'choice, was the best word for this debate.
Con Round 2
Well, I argue it's a choice made off Genetics and Life Experiences.
"Discover who they are",
Eh, I 'am fond of poetry such as "I am the master of my fate" - Invictus
or
"You, I've mistaken for destiny
But the truth is, my legacy
Is not up to my genes
True, though the imprint is deep in me
It will always be up to me
Up to me"
- Genetic Opera
Con makes argument that it's not a 'simple 'easy choice.
I 'do think people can choose who they attracted to,
Except 'maybe the most Hard Wired of people.
I'm not highly convinced by the 'discovery argument, or the underlying orientation argument.
But it 'is an argument, and one that Con used somewhat in round 1.
Again, I'm big on 'both Nature and Nurture, I think how people live 'does effect who they are attracted to.
. . . Course I 'could be assuming too much malleability in humans, and assuming less humans Hard Wired, than what are. (Shrug)
Con makes a decent argument of music, people 'do have natural predispositions genetically.
Though one might argue that if the predisposition never branches out, it might atrophy off.
. . . Course, a person hardwired might be more likely to 'keep said predisposition.
Con is right that Pro did not address the 'why choose a hard life question.
Though Pro argued they 'don't have hard lives (Not true in many places)
Fiddler on the roof - "Do you love me ?"
An interesting question, that I'm sure people have 'strong views about.
Nature and Nurture.
How 'much control, makes something a choice?
Ah, I meant it as a joke.
It's from 8-Bit Theater, a webcomic about a party of psychopaths.
I'm a 'bit sorry I deleted it now, As you have replied.
But I figured other people might not find it as funny as me, and thought, 15 minute window to delete, probably no one read it.
But instant I click delete, heh, notification.
. . .
I'm not 'terribly serious about the topic,
Though I 'do find it interesting, and think there are argument to be made for seeking war.
I'm open to it being about any effects, be they Military, Political, Economic, Moral, or Other.
The Black Forest in Germany, is somewhere I've often thought would be interesting to see.
Certainly they are fine countries.
Varying in aspects of life's qualities that they excel in.
But still, I would choose America, for what it excels in, and I value, for me.
I hear it's a fine country,
Though I am fond of the redwoods of Oregon.
And 'by that, their military suffered and rusted some.
'Had Germany invaded in WW2, as was considered, the Swiss would not have held out as 'well, as if they 'had minded war.
'Would they?
Swiss Mercenaries have 'such a fame in history.
And if Japan had not 'cut themselves off from the world, during the Sakoku Era, but instead had kept their weapons 'relevant and honed,
The Black Ships of Admiral Perry, might not have laid before Japan such threat, as to force open their ports to trade.
It 'is an interesting question, an interesting debate to read and think on.
Though Briguy21's rounds were short, I 'do think they hit upon important details of the debate.
I often 'forget the existence of that description describing the debate before one clicks on the debate, as one can't see it, once they have clicked on the debate.
Title
Well, Christianity 'does have his name in it.
Description
Spirit of the debate/honesty, can work well in a debate.
Umbrellacorp Round 1
There 'are a lot of 'different structures and doctrines, then what might have been around some 2000 years ago.
Though, I'd figure there were a lot of different ideas back then as well.
He'd see his 'influence, I imagine, even if it didn't always go the ways he might have chosen.
And I'd imagine that there were some key ideas he might have been pushing for back then, words he might have spoken 'just about the same back then, as they are preserved now.
"So, in Conclusion: Christianity’s core doctrines would be foreign toJesus."
Not sure I agree with that, The 'Core, I imagine, is 'always the Bible. Even much is added to it, differently interpreted, not 'completely followed.
. . . Well, he 'might not recognize some as his own,
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6335-would-jesus-recognize-christianity-as-his-if-he-were-alive-today
Though I think that's a bit obtuse, though I 'can understand the 'reason for him 'saying such.
People have 'still heard of him and his words, created and followed something 'similar.
I'm sure Jesus 'would preach for many changes, were he to return.
. . . Course there would be a difference between Jesus the Divine, and Jesus the Man.
That is to say if we are viewing him as a Divine Individual, or from an Atheistic Mindset as a more mundane human with interesting views on Morality, Ethics.
Maybe depends if he could acquire power or not.
As a normal human, it's hard to avoid realistic consequences and politics. Though one 'can choose to avoid such.
I think he'd have an easier time sticking to his guns if people did not believe he was truly Jesus.
"are they truly following Jesus-or just wearing his name?"
I think many people would 'like to, try to, 'dream to.
But for many people, it is only a dream, I think of religious individuals, who are yet outright criminals. Perhaps thinking they would 'like to put into action Christs teachings, but they love wealth, pleasure, power. Perhaps some expect Hell or Purgatory.
. . . Some people 'do though, more or less. And I must say when I 'meet them, or see their actions. I feel a bit unnerved and creeped out. By their Good Works, Altruisms, Efforts.
. . It's not that I 'never feel an urge to do good, not that I am 'never good, but I am not such a person as they.
Briguy21 Round 1
Mentions The gospel, argues that Christianity is not based on organizations but on individuality.
. . There 'are a lot of variations of it.
Umbrellacorp Round 2
Christianity 'is a big umbrella.
I think Briguy21 'did address the concerns about hierarchy, wealth, exclusion, and moral policing, though one could argue perhaps not in 'depth.
But they argue the 'core is The Gospel, and that many tenants 'are followed.
Though Umbrellacorp makes a point that they 'could be followed 'more.
I think 'some Christians 'are rather giving.
I suppose you could argue percentagewise more are not, than are.
But maybe that's hard to calculate. .
If we looked back to older times. . Could we calculate it then?
Did Jesus 'only consider a Christian, those who gave their all end everything?
Or could he understand that such was 'exceptional, even if he advocated for it?
Even back in his time, I'm sure there were people who followed him only 'partway, they still had jobs, nations. Could not 'fully give themselves.
Briguy21 Round 2
Points out the difficulty of definition.
. . .
Hm, I wonder if George Washington would recognize America as partly his, were he alive today?
. . . I imagine some of the 'really racist Founding Fathers might not, or only partially recognize it.
But then, America is unified as one under laws and force.
I think there's a difference between playing 'games of definitions,
And arguing that definitions 'matter at times 'to argue a subject.
Christianity is a bit 'nebulous. . . Disagreed a concept. Maybe.
Ask the poor giving Christian, if Christianity is defined as the big megachurches and hating others, might say no.
. . . Even the megachurch pastor might say no, though I might suspect 'that one lying.
I hate time travel and multiverse theory.
. . .
Hm, shoehorn. . . What if I imagined fact that humans have memories, memories change get forgotten/buried. I have existed once, and will again, unless X changes then I would exist as X. Would I change X aspect of myself, to prevent future X?
Also, title might have been better as 'Kill' baby Hitler.
Con Round 1
Descriptions says they pass the first round.
Pro Round 1
Argues less suffering overall if we kill baby Hitler.
Claims it is unlikely another psychotic rug rat would emerge.
I'm not 'so sure of that myself, I 'think antisemitism was pretty high back then, Germans pretty unhappy about WW1 terms, some countries wanting to get back together, Russia problem, Unstable Germany, some argue many atrocities came about from ground level decisions of soldiers and generals doing what they 'thought Hitler expected.
Hard to say.
I skimmed this earlier, and I recall Con made an argument valuing the future/present that one has. 'Might be enough, but they'd do better to back their arguement with arguement of possible worse future as well.
Con Round 2
Argues the importance of the existent, over the nonexistent.
Well, it is 'an argument.
And until debate is further expounded, it's a bit value this or that.
Pro Round 2
Man I hate time travel.
Pro makes a decent argument for valuing 'currently non existent lives.
Con Round 3
Con makes an interesting argument, in how many people will be effected, and 'not be.
It 'was a world war, lots of people moving about, meeting people they would not have met otherwise.
. . . Course, , Then people are, , Wouldn't there be some future with a maximum number of people created? Should we only aim for that future?
Con argument makes sense from purely self interested and accepting of 'current self and people, but then what is 'now?
I hate time travel.
. . .
I'm not going to vote, I think.
. . .
Personally, even if it improved the so called current timeline, I would not do anything to change it.
I'm selfish,
I like myself, even any bad stuff in my life, it has made me, me, and I accept myself, love myself.
. . . Also, time travel is confusing, and I don't believe in time travel to the past.
Thanks for voting and feedback.
Are there any Government sponsored atrocities in the USA, that come to mind in particular?
I suppose there's been some times Government has come into conflict with new territories, such as Utah.
Various Company vs Labor conflicts that turned out poorly for labor usually (I assume).
War veterans wanting to be paid right after the Revolution.
Maybe The Black Panthers.
I find it interesting that you are for gun control to (?) degree,
Due to my making a general (Possibly erroneous) assumption about people from the US military being primarily Pro Gun.
What would you say influences your views on gun control?
I 'do think I could have done a better job with sources.
In expounding upon their implications, or what from them apply to my argument.
Various insurgencies for example, I might have done a better job in laying out exactly 'what from those instances, could occur similarly in America.
Why there were so 'many, I feel as though 'every time I make some factual claim I 'ought back it up with a source for proof.
It 'also feels a problem when there are 'so 'many conflicting studies and examples. Most all with different variables. It seemed to me the best method to include 'many, and try to argue what was common in all.
Also for Mexico, I had a hard time finding a source that talked explicitly at length about gun control in Colonial Mexico.
Debate Title
My 'first instinct, is that 'most current society would say no.
Course I imagine there is 'still many religious individuals not 'fond of homosexuality.
. . . What if I switched it, to Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
Well, then I have a reaction, a clear dislike, course one hears some cultures were pretty gay in history. Pederasty in ancient Greece. Course even 'current culture wouldn't like that much, because of power imbalance, underage thing.
Cultural norms eh?
. . . What else ought I compare sexuality then? Favorite color? Political views? Philosophy?
Arguably we try to change our kids already, school education/indoctrination and all that.
Current society probably wouldn't like a parent naming their kid Adolf and raising them as a Nazi. Though I still don't 'like that, I don't have the same knee jerk against it.
Freedom of family and all that. . . I 'would have a knee jerk against a family raising it's kid under obviously false conspiracy theories.
Course 'then one can get into a Theist and Atheist problem. Though I don't think it's 'so clear myself, it is to the hardliners on either side.
Well, I look forward to reading the debate anyhow.
Pro Round 1
Forfeit. Not 'ideal.
But Con seems to accept Pro's apology and excuse.
Con Round 1
Eh, love 'can come with conversion therapy. Try to 'convert someone out of drugs for instance. Or try to encourage someone on what one thinks is the moral right path in life.
Though I suppose people 'can be misguided sometimes.
Church groups who burn D&D books for instance, I'm not 'certain they're a path to the Devil. Though an argument 'could be made.
Morality is often confirmative.
Good argument though, on "increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
Including sources would help though.
. . . I'd imagine drug addicts can get those as 'well, when getting off drugs. So I'm not sure it's the 'best argument. But that depends on how Good/Neutral/Bad homosexuality ends up argued in the debate. Drugs, people usually see as bad, Homosexuality, many might say Neutral or equal Good to Heterosexuality.
'Some Ethics is about catering to social comfort, duty.
Depends which Ethics you ask though.
Con makes an alright argument, appealing to individuality and arguing that attempts to change a child’s sexuality could be harmful.
Pro Round 2
'Possible mistake, or Possible advantage.
When Pro say's "Coercive", something I realize, is the debate does not state how 'hard a parent has to try to prevent or change their child's homosexuality.
It's 'great you two are 'referencing stuff, but I think accessible sources are 'ideal.
Makes religious argument, but I think their 'strongest point in this round, has been in arguing for softer more accepting methods in changing their child's sexuality.
This currently has them winning in my book,
But I think Con can make a comeback.
. . . Just because a religion believes X, may make it 'understandable for them to encourage X, but X could still be a practice that 99% of current society finds immoral. Or in this case neutral, to people who view homosexuality neutrally.
So Con 'could push the view that while soft pushing for a child to change their sexuality isn't 'as bad as Coercive Conversion therapy, it 'still ends up as bad, just far 'less bad. No matter the parents motivations.
Con Round 2
Well, in a 'sense Con 'will have to use religion. But that's by the definitions of people who view even atheistic group ethics/morals/beliefs as a religion.
Con 'has been using Individuality in their argument, and that 'is often a shared group value.
I'm 'not highly convinced by Con's arguments that we cannot rewire identity.
Even as adults, government attempts such on us, soft 'or hard.
But as 'children 'especially, parents and governments take 'great interest in developing us towards their ideals.
If one wanted a positive outcome, then a level of acceptance 'would be ideal. Even if one disliked celibate monks.
Not a 'fan of all the sweetheart or honey, used by Con.
Con makes a point that conformity isn't 'everything.
But we 'do raise our kids not to be 'purely self interested, even if such might help them more.
We see a 'duty to society, and raise them not to steal, to care for others.
The 'existence of studies is great, but 'sources are needed, whether 'links or 'exactly what I need to Google.
I'm not 'fully convinced that trying to change someone's sexuality would 'always be harmful.
Fair number of bisexual by nature individuals, might not be too harmed by nurture, one way or the other.
Well, my vote is still with Pro.
Valuing personal identity 'so strongly, I don't think is working for Con, given how much society molds kids.
And a Value 'is Religion in a way. A group holds a Value Sacred, and by that pursues it. Doesn't matter if they 'call it religion or not. It's a normalized within that society value.
. . . I think Con would do better to argue homosexuality as not harmful or wrong and argue it a greater wrong to try to change someone's individuality, than to accept it. But accept softer means as 'less wrong than hard coercion.
It could 'still end up wrong, and per the debate title, count as a win.
Pro Round 3
"Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion." Pro Round 2
Well, doesn't 'really matter, and one could argue Pro meant religion is going to factor into the debate, being so world popular.
Means and Motivation VS Ends?
Subjective, Objective. . .
Pro makes a good argument with how much society at large is encouraging different sexualities, different moralities, beliefs.
Pro argue the existence of tough love.
Religious parents can 'still be 'wrong though.
Even if someone has the right 'motivations, and is influenced by their own past, they can 'still make the 'wrong decision (Subjectively/Objectively/Depending on One's Beliefs)
. . . Well, maybe.
Con 'did need to do more, to substantiate their high valuing of Individual Identity.
They also could have pushed harder at potential wrongs, even if slight, by the influencing of the parents.
As well as made arguments for homosexuality not being wrong. Never 'mind the parents motivations.
At this point, I'd give Pro a 'strong lead.
Con Round 3
Ah Con, I think you could have done 'so much better by going over and 'strengthening again your argument that 'any pushback or attempt to change their child's sexuality can have 'some negative effects.
Pro has some 'answers to that, such as acceptance, or arguing that pushback on 'any identities can have a negative effect.
But Con should have made stronger arguments normalizing Homosexuality as something not 'needing to be changed, unlike heavy drug use.
Glad to hear it.
You 'really did not seem to like my arguments or style,
Ah well, thanks for accepting and debating all rounds.
Round 1
"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_India
Does that 'really mean it allows gay marriage though?
People. . . 'Can't be treated all the same,
An adult and a child get treated differently by the law I'd assume?
I mean, in America for instance, it's that way.
We even have different 'prisons for adults and juveniles.
I'd agree, societies 'do change over time though.
And I 'suppose there have been many 'different ideas of marriage throughout the world and history.
Bit hard 'to change it though, when it has large implications,
Lot of cultures in the world, where women had a lot less right for instance, for being women.
Though some cultures were more equal that that.
. . . Still, in cultures 'with that, even progressive cultures, marriage often had a 'lot more laws tied into it, never mind the religion or culture part.
There would be a 'mass of laws I assume, based 'specifically around marriage as between a man and a woman.
Makes it 'tricky to change.
. . .
Course, lot of that changed in much of the world, more equal rights to women, less 'need for a number of the protection laws, or slavery laws, depending on culture and point in time.
Men and women being 'less defined for being 'men or 'women, and more defined for being 'people.
Though, I still think what one's sex is, plays a significant part in countries, even the one's focused on 'persons, rather than sex.
Nowadays, I think marriage 'is much more a social contract between two people, in some parts of the world.
But that's just my view as an American, mish mash or cultures, almost 'excessive amount of Individual Freedom here.
. . .
Round 2
Eh, 'Natural, is a funny word.
Rabies for example, 'occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
Natural also applies to 'Society,
Even 'if humans have many different forms of society,
'Natural to one society, is not always Natural to another society.
Not 'regular, that is to say.
For some people, marriage is 'primarily about sharing genetics and fortunes with another.
Bible for instance has,
English Standard Version
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/25-5.htm
Can you imagine if the brother had married a man, then died?
Just doesn't 'sound right.
It's that recognition again, of 'differences, between the sexes.
Purposes and abilities,
Course someday if science creates artificial wombs, what will one do then?
. . . And I suppose one could argue there are 'already alternate solutions in modern society such as surrogate mothers. That past laws might have not accounted for.
Not that people apply all Biblical laws unto themselves anyhow, as they often talk about 'other 'older country laws, history books not always prescriptive, but eh, lot of different takes, I'm sure.
I don't really know what India and various parts of India believe,
But I think same sex marriage has greatly changed American culture.
Course it's one of many changes. Born of, beside, and birther of.
People 'say don't worry about the slippery slope,
But so much of history occurs in 'tiny changes we don't notice,
It's like our hair or face slowly aging, hard to see day by day, but it's there.
It's not 'always the 'sudden revolutions.
I think you voted for me by mistake.
You can copy your RFV vote, delete your vote, and recast it, or if too much time has passed, you can ask a Mod to delete it, that you can recast it.
I still think if something can 'theoretically be resolved,
That 'can be another way of saying it 'can be resolved.
Or if one thinks a problem might be solved in the future.
Suppose years ago in some medieval period for instance, someone said, resolved that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
Suppose someone offered up the idea of hot air balloons or gliders, perhaps they could not 'currently 'build such, or construct and explain 'every detail of a design.
But a rough outline would be enough for me to doubt the claimed resolution that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
I also don't quite understand the vote 'reasons for legibility and sources.
Still, thanks for reading and voting on the debate.
Maybe you should make time for argument longer, in the future.
It'd be easier not to tie, if you had made a token argument.
I'm not sure what India would look like today if Britain had never exploited it as they did.
Possibly some other nation would have exploited it, but assuming that no nation exploited it.
I don't 'think India was 'too unified. Various factions, Princes, Warlords, different cultures?
Course, people don't always 'like being unified.
The Industrial Revolution, took place roughly between 1750 - 1900, I assume wouldn't have been good for India, but I'd think British exploitation and control of economics and crops, made the situation worse.
The Bengal Famine of 1943, wasn't 'completely Churchills fault.
But there's still argument for the mismanagement, failings, and lack of feeling by the British main government.
Pro has a point about a number of the 'improvements, being made for avaricious purposes, such as the rail system, and education.
Indian Civil Service has to be taken in London, I think.
One could argue it is 'possible many changes in Indian society might not have taken place, without Britain's role in India, but alternate timelines can be hard to prove likely.
And even assuming that some cultural changes brought about by forced law or exposure to British culture.
Such as Changes to India Caste System or The practice of Sati.
Even 'possible benefits such as railroads and a more unified India.
Hard to argue Britain did not do so 'accidentally in the search for profit, or as phony 'excuse for their exploitation.
. . . Also possible some people like/d some aspects of the culture that has changed.
. . . Probably some good changes, some bad. . . Subjectively.
I don't think I've ever heard of a token/symbolic/heartfelt attempt at reparations by Britain towards India.
Might be some artifacts in the British 'Museum that would be useful as in being given in part of ceremonial apology.
. . . I'm not sure what form of useful 'function reparations ought take, in 'any case of reparations.
. . .
All this said, I'm not well read on India, Britain, their histories or interactions.
@NobodyInParticular
Ah, Forgot to use a couple thoughts in debate, ah well.
"A slave isn't a slave unless it possesses the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend the condition of slavery."
- Vilenjji, Lost and Found by Alan Dean Foster
Course, in the book, the various aliens abducted from their planet disagree.
. . .
And,
Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia
. . .
Just want to note again, that my position and arguments in the debate, are not necessarily the views I 'hold.
I was glad for the opportunity to debate this subject,
One of my earliest debates was whether, This was the Best of All Possible Worlds?
I was inspired after reading Candide.
Went worse than this one,
Though I suppose this one also differenced in focusing on animals other than humans.
While usually such a debate might focus on humans primarily.
I'm still not wild about my performance in this debate,
But it was a push for me to read a number thoughts online,
Such as Descartes, Reincarnation, glanced at C. S. Lewis, Charles Darwin.
I do wonder if you redo the debate though,
What might differ, with a different opponent.
@NobodyInParticular
Carp, well that was a useless fishing cast (For me) (Reincarnation)
Not something I believe in, not something I thought was mainstream in Abrahamic Religion, but I thought there was a chance of some offshoot section of people in the Abrahamic faith who believed in it.
Closest 'I see right this moment is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah,
But I'm not seeing any good arguments or citation of old writings I can use.
Hm, there 'is epigenetic inheritance,
Course on another hand how can you reincarnate through your child while they're alive?
And even if it was some 100 generations later that you supposedly reincarnated, just seems 'tacked 'on to the scientific explanation.
And even the scientific explanation one can argue isn't so much 'memories like thinking back to some moment of your life lived (I think).
"Environmental factors experienced in one generation can impact the behavior of unborn offspring in mammals (Fig. 1C). For example, environmental stresses such as high exposure to predators reduces maternal care in female rats, as measured by licking/grooming and arched-back nursing (LG-ABN; Fig. 1C) [75]. Pups reared under conditions of low maternal protection and LG-ABN are more fearful and more sensitive to environmental stresses. These pups exhibit less LG-ABN with their offspring than normal pups, even in the absence of environmental stressors and this behavior is passed on to future generations (Fig. 1C) [75]."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4072033/
"Of great interest is that they provide a possible explanation of the frequent observation in human societies that adverse environments acting in one generation appear to influence the behavior and disease risk of subsequent generations. As a consequence, the transgenerational inheritance of stress pathology"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014488611000239?via%3Dihub
Yes. . . Give in to the SUS.
. . .
People 'do use nature or natural in a vague general way though.
Nature sometimes operating in a way that brings benefits,
While going against one's nature can lead to errors and discomfort.
I find humans interesting in how 'much we've changed our environments and behaviors, and how quickly.
Some ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, I think result in more happiness and life for us.
Other ways, contrary to a more archaic and natural human, actually end up 'worse for us, I think.
If one believes in the hunter gatherer theory,
Well, farming sure allows us to grow a lot of food.
But 'sitting at a desk all day, doesn't seem as healthy as moving about and socializing.
@NobodyInParticular
I don't advocate for cruelty to animals, generally speaking.
It's not. . . easy, to change my way of life, whether it is eating meat, or plants.
I mention plants, because many animals die in farming as well.
My talk of lesser animals 'also discomforts me,
Because I've been reading a book on slavery recently.
Ah well.
Some animals are more equal than others route, I seem to be going in this debate.
@Self
I hope I don't sound pretentious, as though I understand the topic well, I 'don't, but one 'learns the unfamiliar by 'attempting it at times.
Forcing oneself to read, study, get feedback on one's thoughts.
. . .
The canst, might be a bit pretentious. But I 'like archaic English sometimes.
Hm, people don't always like videos and style, but I do,
And these aren't 'long, or even 'required videos to watch.
@Self #22
Or maybe a huge chunk of butter that a cracker has been dipped into.
So much history to teach, so little time.
I look forward to reading the debate.
Don't feel a need to respond to all of this, as I know the debate is still ongoing, just some idle thought on my part.
Or any unless you want to of course.
The problem I see is that there are so 'many minorities, ought every minority have a month?
Or a large focus on X individuals from X minority who have succeeded?
Again, lot of minorities.
I can appreciate people of X group taking a focus on their particular history and accomplishments.
. . . And I 'can see an argument in educating ignorant individuals who think X people are incapable of accomplishments, even though education, wealth and opportunity play such vital roles.
But I also think America's history is 'full of mistaken thinking and errors, that we can now see in hindsight.
I don't remember school or history class all that well, from my 'memory, it 'was pretty shallow. I wouldn't say 'whitewashed, but butter scraped over too much bread.
. . .
Skimming over what I've already read in that book I mentioned,
I found it interesting after the Revolution how laws on Manumissions and Entail and Primogeniture changed,
Manumissions changing to state law and the view that one ought be able to do as they like with their property, increasing State Rights Ideals in southern states.
Entail and Primogeniture, allowing for slavery to spread south and west easier.
Hudgins v. Wrights,
Judge St. George Tucker
I know people argue against the slippery slope in regards of laws, but so 'much of history and law 'is the slippery slope to my view.
Sure there are huge revolutions sometimes, but even those are made of many small parts coming together, many small steps until the destination is arrived at.
The book also talked about of the bad conditions of slaves, and events they endured, blacks serving in the military both Colonial and British, escapes, hypocrisy of slave owners, how vital the system was to the South.
. . .
I do think there is a difference in outcome, based in how information is received.
Theoreticals don't impact as much as experience, maybe.
Some people argue against 'style in debate, but style impacts how something is received.
Nixon vs Kennedy, radio vs tv, though one 'could argue different types of people listened to the radio than people who watched TV.
It's why Pro Life individuals wish for people to view ultrasound of their fetus before choosing abortion,
Course some people argue such can be badgering, fine line, or a spectrum maybe.
While one side of convincing is to fully expose one to a view,
Another is to sanitize and view dispassionately.
Weirdly, I think 'either can lead to atrocity.
Slaves as an example, by style and exposure, one can fire up a panicked fear crazed mob,
By Sanitization and Rational Self interest, one can ignore the suffering of others and focus on supposed necessity.
I've gone to the library a couple times this week,
Trying to change my schedule, so I stop staying up all night,
Hopefully it'll stick eventually.
But, the book I picked off the shelf the last couple times has been,
The Internal Enemy Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 By Alan Taylor
Some of it I know 'roughly, but it 'is interesting to get a more in depth view of the topic.
And it 'does depict a lot of founding Americans ba- honestly, which for them is a bad light.
I 'do think black history should be taught in schools, and not just skipped over when certain time periods and locations of America are being covered.
I also find it interesting politically/legally, how one can see-
Well, I'll say more in an hour or two, I found a part of that book interesting on attempted legislation and then how the legislator changed their stance for political reasons.
History,
I'd imagine is taught, per what one is.
America as an example,
Has a 'clear, recent and documented founding.
Colonization, Rebellion and Independence, Ideals and Values clear spoken and defined (Kind of).
Compare that with someplace such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan.
Is founding their furthest memory of their people, or their 'current regime and people?
I'll assume 'current regime, else American History would focus 'more on times before The War of Independence.
Though I'm sure previous regimes and accomplishments are still important.
Seems hard to 'avoid speaking of Black history, when speaking of America and it's founding,
Not to mention how many 'current laws and policies are effected by it.
So many laws 'carefully worded, during Independence, out of Southern fear of their slaves having some right to liberty.
The Civil War's effects on States Rights, on Birth Citizenship.
Civil Rights Movement, Effect on Class/Caste? in America.
. . .
Not that Blacks are the 'only ones of discussion in all these events, 'nor that their actions as individuals/Vague Group has always been ideal and good.
. . . I don't think teaching black history, or more black history is wrong.
Though I think it might be an error to teach Black History Month or have a class focus a semester or something on Black History.
. . I think I prefer history by time period and location, there are many groups in America, at every point, exerting influence.
Well, I 'have to,
I 'look for information based on my imagination and logic,
One comes up with an untested theory, then 'ideally tests or reads other people's tests on the subject.
I mean it 'could be that animals have no idea or hunger the opposite sex, and just hump everything.
But then why do various male animals compete and literally butt heads and horns with other males, in order to gain the females?
Sure some animals engage in homosexual behaviors,
But other times if some male is head of the pack of females,
If some other male approaches him in a homosexual advance,
I can imagine the alpha male just responding with irritation, anger, violence, and killing, defending their instinct value to monopolize the females over some homosexuals advances on them.
Mantises have pheromones and such I assume,
So I further assume they can tell male from female,
If a female mantis approaches another female mantis for sex,
Is that what female mantises usually 'look for,
Or maybe the second female mantis just goes straight to murdering and eating the homosexual female?
I don't know, I've not studied it.
What I do doubt is that studies or information about homophobic behaviors in animals to be popular with homosexuals and supporters of homosexuals.
. . .
I don't have a 'certainty on my view of homophobia in other animals,
I've not studied it.
Bit subjective anyhow in definition maybe.
And I don't mean to push my view on others.
But it's not a view I'm center agnostic unknown on,
I've leanings of imagination, theory, and logic.
Advice that seems solid to me, is get a job, 'most any job. Maybe.
Keep track of where you got it, your employers name and number, for future job references.
Earlier you start, earlier you're done, if you plan the future right and save your money. Maybe.
For most people, saved money's always good to have.
And lot of people are creatures of habit,
Get into the habit of not working, it can be easy to keep not working.
Get into the habit of working, easier to keep working.
Because I didn't enjoy the lack of freedom.
I found it irritating to have 'so 'many of my actions be forced and regulated.
Anything you want to do?
Any interests you have?
Interested in following any family footsteps?
Any straightforward paths available to you?
Personally, I lazed about, rotted and decayed for a couple years after High School,
Then joined the Navy for 5 years, saved up some money,
After getting out, I rotted for a couple years,
Got a job stocking the freezer section at a supermarket for a couple years,
Then after my Dad broke his arm, left that job for a bit, and I spent an 'irritating amount of time visiting him.
But after he healed up some, I finally was able to get away back to my own place. Except after a few months he asked me to visit again, but 'now I'm away again, back in my own place. No job currently, rotting again, maybe rot the whole summer before trying something again. Random job or college maybe.
Military was annoying, but paid well.
Grocery job, was nice working at night, pay was bad though, and they kept trying to raise my hours. And they never hired enough people, not to mention the turnover rate.
I'd imagine there are examples of homophobia in nature.
And not just in humans I mean.
I think people sometimes have different ideas in their mind, by what they mean by nature or natural.
Rabies for example, occurs in nature, 'but if a person see's a wolf foaming at the mouth and other rabies actions, they might say, "That's not natural."
Course, rabies isn't 'so much inborn in a wolf. . .
Genetic diseases then, suppose a wolf was born albino, people might say "That's not natural."
Sure that's just natural selection and chance, but the norm, normal and natural, depend on what box you're putting them in.
. . .
That said, I'm sure there are various homosexual organisms in nature,
And some organisms that change sex.