Total posts: 4,340
Lets say you do something morally neutral such as buy a red car. Society is pro choice on owning red cars. But society would cease to be pro choice on red cars if the government offered to give them for free to low income people. If the government did that, the government would be picking a side and encouraging poor people to get red cars.
Similarly, pro choicers often want the government to stay out of the abortion business. However, they appear to be inconsistent with this idea because the majority of pro choicers (including Biden) want the government to pick a side on the abortion debate by giving women free abortions that want them. If you want a red car, you pay for it yourself, since the government doesn't have a stance on whether or not you get a red car. With the same logic, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself. The government should not be giving free abortions to people paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds. Just as I wouldn't force a Christian to fund a satanic temple (even though I think they should be allowed to exist), I wouldn't have a Christian who opposes abortion be forced to fund abortions, which they don't approve of. I want the amount of things people are legally forced to fund be minimal.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
we are not "tearing down the rich"
Your taking their money. That's basically a small scale of "tearing down the rich".
it would be more akin to allowing people with dyslexia or who have trouble reading English in general to have someone to read tests to them - would you consider allowing them that and "robbing" the other children of that privllege tearing them down?
I think if someone can't read the tests and the teacher knows, then the teacher probably has enough common sense to read the test to the dyslexic person on test day. I'm not dyslexic, but I imagine the people who are get used to it.
I am arguing that taxing poor and rich people the same rate is fundamentally flawed, just as testing people with dyslexia and people without it the same is flawed - and the only way for the tax rate to keep up and support the infrastructure is to increase the taxes on the rich
I would argue a similar position to Jessie Ventura on taxes and want to replace the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax (Jesse Ventura on the Issues).
they make more than enough money to succeed
Most people make more than enough to succeed, just like most people in school earn higher grades than they need to to pass, yet they don't have to subsidize other people without their consent by reducing their paycheck or their grade (assuming there were only so many points that existed in a school). Would you tax everyone who earns above $30K/year $1 extra per day and give the money to starving 3rd worlders? I wouldn't. If these people wanted to fund Africans, they would do so voluntarily.
Created:
The political compass test often looks like this:
My objections with this is it has 2 axises:
1) An economic scale (left vs right)
2) A social scale (libetarian vs authoritarian)
The economic scale is out of whack. The economic scale should be measured in authoritarian vs libetarian. Economically left is the same thing as economically authoritarian (people in this category tend to favor Medicare for all for instance, which is not a libetarian idea) and economically right is the same thing as economically libetarian (lower taxes).
With this new definition, the following becomes true:
-Someone who is "libetarian left" is libetarian on social issues and authoritarian on economic issues. They are therefore a leftist.
-Someone who is "libetarian right" is libetarian on social issues and libetarian on economic issues. They are therefore a libetarian.
-Someone who is "authoritarian left" is authoritarian on social issues and authoritarian on economic issues. They are therefore an authoritarian.
-Someone who is "authoritarian right" is authoritarian on social issues and libetarian on economic issues. They are therefore a conservative.
Therefore, someone who is ancom is not as libetarian left as you can go (since ancom is I think exactly the same thing as communism as their talking points are exactly the same), but instead is as left as you can go, and someone who is ancap is not as libetarian right as you can go, but just as libetarian as you can go.
With few exceptions, there is no such thing as a libetarian leftist. These people are just leftists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Celebrities Who Have Died from Coronavirus | PEOPLE.com shows 46 celebrities who died of covid. The odds of covid not being the cause of their death are slim, given they all had to go to the hospital for it.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You don't build up the weak by tearing down the strong.
Imagine a classroom where some kids get As, some get Bs, and some kids get lower grades. The professor says, "Passing this class is a human right, but there is only so much grade that can go around. Therefore, we will take some points away from kids that earned high grades and give them to people that have lower grades. If one person has a 100, and another person has a 60, they both are working hard, but one does better than the other. We are going to take 10 points away from the person with 100 and give those points to the person with a 60 so their new grades are 90 and 70. The person with a 100 didn't need a grade that high, and you need a 65 to pass (similar to how one may need a certain amount of money to survive). Anyone who objects to this idea that has a high grade is selfish and greedy".
Should this idea be implemented? No. You earn and work for your own grade with ideally nobody working for your grade. In addition, if people assume that other kids will pay for their grades (like the wealthy paying for your own living expenses), then this decreases the incentive to work, reducing the average grade in the class (since people don't try as hard knowing that they are going to pass no matter what). With this logic, less people study, the smart people realize that they will never get an A, no matter how hard they try, so everyone is worse off as a result.
We see this with President Lyndon B Johnson's war on poverty. Before the bill was passed, the poverty rate was falling drastically. After the bill was implemented, the poverty rate stagnated.
Big government sucks.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think masks at this point should not be mandatory. If your not vaccinated at this point in time, that is either because your too young to have a high chance of dying of covid, or your old enough to where you had so much time to get vaccinated and you chose not to, so if you die of covid, it's on you if you want to take a risk with covid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I disagree with Tim Scott on many issues, but I agree with him on some as well.
What I disagree with Tim Scott on:
1) Abortion; he's pro life on abortion and I'm pro choice/anti pain.
2) Immigration; he supports secure borders, I support increasing the number of taxpayers in the country.
3) Military industrial complex: He wants to give the military more funds as a percentage of our GDP; I don't.
4) He, like 95% of politicians in DC is a partisan hack who only thinks along party lines. Not even I think along party lines, as I disagree with libetarians on nuclear power and I think some taxation is needed to maintain a society, but would prefer it if taxes were lowered. I prefer candidates that think for themselves.
What I agree with him on (but would prefer it if he went further):
1) He wants to, "Replace income tax & estate tax with 23% sales tax"(Tim Scott on the Issues). I want something similar to this, so I give him credit here.
2) He, "Opposes restrictions on right to bear arms". I agree with him 100% here.
3) He doesn't believe he is a racist. I agree with him here.
4) He, "Disapprove of increasing the debt limit". I want the debt entirely paid off in 4 years while cutting taxes and not cutting overall spending by increasing the number of taxpayers in the country.
Why should I support Tim Scott?
Created:
Posted in:
Premise 1: Things that produce a victim are wrong and should be banned.
Premise 2: Murder produces a victim.
Conclusion 1: Murder should be banned.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If that law was put into practice, then over 90% of sons back then would have gotten stoned to death, because every son rebelled against their parents at some point. I think that verse was twisted similar to how things are twisted in the game telephone. In the game telephone, one person deliberately messing up what was said or multiple people accidentally messing something up will lead to an inaccurate bible.
Moreover, assuming these things that were said was what God intended, a law based off of the 10 commandments won't include this portion because the first 4 commandments got repealed under this model. My commandments and punishments that would come with those commandments are:
- Honor your father and your mother. Punishment is up to 3 lashings if the parents desire this, but the maximum punishment must be used very rarely.
- You shall not murder. Punishment is life imprisonment.
- You shall not rape. Punishment is up to life imprisonment, depends on the state.
- You shall not commit adultery unless both partners consent. Punishment is 10 hours of mandatory counseling to prevent further adultury.
- You shall not steal. Punishment is 2 weeks in jail doing community service for every $1000 worth of stuff stolen. Sentence can be reduced by 2 weeks per $1000 that is returned. After the sentence (since you stole due to lack of money), the state offers you a job doing productive work, and this gets you out of poverty so you don't have to steal again.
- You shall not bear deliberately false witness. Punishment is the punishment the defendant would have received.
- You shall not assault. Punishment depends on the damage caused and is left up to the states, but can't be punished by more than 1 week, unless damage was very serious.
Since obeying God no matter what isn't mandatory with these commandments, this means that women who aren't virgins on their wedding day won't get stoned and rebellious sons won't get stoned either.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I stated that I would repeal the first 4 commandments.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Lashing? Really? I thought this is the 21th century.
It's only 3 lashings. I don't think it would be that big of a deal. So what if someone gets lashed 3 times as a punishment. It's not like they are being shipped 100x.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
We already have enough laws in our legal systems. Why add more laws?
I want to replace the thousands of laws in our legal system with 7 easy to remember laws. This includes the 6 ones I mentioned, plus a law against assault, with the punishment for that depending on the damage.
Adultery is an interesting one. It does make sense to have sanctions on the marriage contract. Otherwise it is a meaningless legal document. But surely you would want to include within this - no rape. No domestic violence, etc.
Already covered. My 7 commandments are:
- Honor your father and your mother. Punishment is up to 3 lashings if the parents desire this.
- You shall not murder. Punishment is life imprisonment.
- You shall not rape. Punishment is life imprisonment.
- You shall not commit adultery unless both partners consent. Punishment is mandatory counseling to prevent further adultury.
- You shall not steal. Punishment is 2 weeks in jail doing community service for every $1000 worth of stuff stolen. Sentence can be reduced by 2 weeks per $1000 that is returned. After the sentence (since you stole due to lack of money), the state offers you a job doing productive work, and this gets you out of poverty so you don't have to steal again.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Punishment is the punishment your neighbor would have received.
- You shall not assault. Punishment depends on the damage.
The fear of domestic violence is covered under my 7th commandment.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Not to mention that the biblical punishment for disobedient children was death.
I think when the bible said that, they meant putting the idea of children disobeying their parents to death. Meaning, if a child disobeyed their parents, it was the parent's job to put the idea that the child had to death. Children in bible times were comparably rebellious to children today. If this verse was implemented literally, there would be a lot of dead kids back then.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
(In reference to honor your mother and father)You do realize that biblically - this leads to parents getting away with abuse? With never being questioned?
If your parents are being abusive, then you wouldn't honor them. You don't have to obey your parents on everything and still honor them. For example, you probably honor America, even though you disagree with some of it's policies. Moreover, the vast majority of parents love their children enough not to cause abuse. If their kids state that one of the parent's rules is unjust, then the parents often modify that rule. It happened in my house. The parents used to restrict the kid's WIFI to 2 hours a day. But then the kids gradually got that number up to something else.
So um... originally this definitely did not say murder, and it definitely was not referring to the legal definition of murder - it was referring to killing in general
If this was referring to killing in general, then the bible would advocate vegetarianism, which it doesn't. The bible prohibits murder, not all killing.
Also -also - in the bible, anything which is considered a "sexual crime" is considered adultery, such as gay people being gay.
Homosexuality is not banned under my 6 commandments, unless the gay people are committing adultury that their partners don't consent too.
Also... no, cheating on your partner definitely shouldn't be illegal, especially not when there are things like abusive relationships and such.
If your partner doesn't consent, it should be banned. Although there should be a commandment prohibiting assault, with the punishment depending on the damage. This outlaws abusive relationships, where there is a huge amount of assault.
Makes me want to laugh at you - I am being serious- if you are claiming that SERIOUSLY - it'd be like saying: "Women were casually raped in the past, and them being casually raped now is just fine."
Under my 6 commandments, rape is banned and punished with life imprisonment:
3. You shall not rape. Punishment is life imprisonment.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What 6000 are needed to address these six?
There are over 6000 laws on the books. I don't think America needs 6000 laws.
Legislating morality never really works.
So if someone cheated on you, you wouldn't care? There is an exception if both the husband and the wife are fine with it.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If the ones that matter already have laws, then why do we need 6000 laws to prevent 6 things from happening?
And five, if under 18, can lead to an incorrigible charge in some states.
I don’t understand what your saying here. Can you clarify?
Not sure adultery needs to have a law or a punishment.
It should if both partners aren’t on board with it.
Created:
The 10 commandments of the bible are:
- You shall have no other gods before Me.
- You shall make no idols.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
- Keep the Sabbath day holy.
- Honor your father and your mother.
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not commit adultery.
- You shall not steal.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- You shall not covet.
I don't think this list is perfect, but it's a good base for our legal system. The first 4 commandments should be removed. The 5th one should be a legalized recommendation. Keep commandment 6. Keep commandment 7 unless both spouses consent to it. Keep commandment 8 and 9, and maybe the government should lead by example by not stealing as much money as it does. Remove commandment 10, as coveting is wishing you had more, and this sparks ambition, which is good. A punishment should be added for every commandment as well. I also think a commandment should be made against rape.
That makes my proposed commandments the following:
- Honor your father and your mother. Punishment is up to 3 lashings if the parents desire this.
- You shall not murder. Punishment is life imprisonment.
- You shall not rape. Punishment is life imprisonment.
- You shall not commit adultery unless both partners consent. Punishment is mandatory counseling to prevent further adultury.
- You shall not steal. Punishment is 2 weeks in jail doing community service for every $1000 worth of stuff stolen. Sentence can be reduced by 2 weeks per $1000 that is returned. After the sentence (since you stole due to lack of money), the state offers you a job doing productive work, and this gets you out of poverty so you don't have to steal again.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Punishment is the punishment your neighbor would have received.
The reason for this change is because there are 6000 to 7000 federal laws and many more state laws. "According to the data, the 1970s and 1980s were the high mark for regulations, when the total number of rules put in place were in the 6,000s and 7,000s." (PolitiFact | Ron Paul says 40,000 new laws were "put on the books" on the first day of 2012). This makes it much harder for people to become lawyers which then causes lawyers to pay extremely huge legal fees, it requires people to pay huge sums of money for lawyers (the lawyers have no choice but to charge these high fees because law school is very expensive and lawyers have to recoup the costs. The way to make law school cheaper is to have less rules). Our laws have also required people to fill out so much paperwork before opening up a business. The American commandments, based off of the 10 commandments, is a libetarian, pro freedom, pro American way to make laws that I think should be implemented in the United States to get rid of the thousands of federal, state, and local laws surrounding our lives. Rather than have thousands of laws, I propose having just 6. It worked for the people of ancient Israel and it would work for people living here.
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You aren't attracted to people - sex feeling good is separate from not feeling attracted
But aren’t people attracted to sex because it feels good? If this is the case, then someone who is asexual would find sex neutral or repulsive. Gay people like gay sex. Straight people like straight sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Some asexual people still have sex, because A) It feels good
What does it mean to be asexual if they think sex feels good?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- Meta-analysis of 40 years of studies demonstrates that teaching abstinence only generally results in higher rates of pregnancy, abortion, and STD
- Teaching abstinence + sex ed gives exactly the same result as teaching sex ed only. Therefore, in terms of results, teaching abstinence in any combination has zero impact
I think these bullet points contradict themselves. In the first, your saying that abstinence only results in higher pregnency, abortion, and STDs. In the second, you said teaching abstinence has zero impact.
I think sex ed reduces pregnency/abortion rates, but I'm not sure about the STIs/STDs, mainly because IUDs (the birth control method promoted) prevents against pregnency, but not STIs/STDs.
Created:
They had/have a disadvantage in their earlier years, education-wise and extracurricular-wise to compensate for.
The lurking variable is black children are more likely to grow up in single motherhood homes, and single motherhood houses are more likely to have kids that don't do as well in school. They do tend to be more independent though, so colleges can give single motherhood kids an advantage, but it shouldn't be on the basis of race.
You are wrong. The Right has never and will never properly support assimilation.
The right supports assilimination; which is why they want immigrants to learn English.
the Right Wing sipprot segregation and isolation, especially in marriage and socialising.
This isn't accurate. The right doesn't care which race you marry or socialize with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
False accusation rates would be higher in a society that had believe women as law, but it also would mean more rape victims would get justice since a lot of rape victims are scared of coming out of the closet. The experiment must be done to see if the pros of more rape victims getting justice outweighs the inevitable false accusations that will come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If there is not enough evidence for 90% of cases, then that would mean upwards of 90% are false.
Not necessarily; it just means there is no evidence to confirm if they are true or false.
Pretty much everybody says it is better to let guilty people roam free than to lock up innocent people.
I thought it was the opposite, but I do think it's better to lock up innocent people than to let guilty people roam free. Locking up 1 innocent person is one innocent person locked up. Having 1 guilty person roam free leads to more murders. I'd rather have one innocent person locked up than 10 people murdered from a guilty person allowed to roam.
But if you're fine with literally thousands of people having their lives ruined for doing nothing wrong
I don't think it's thousands, but it's better to have thousands of people with "ruined lives" than tens of thousands of rape victims not getting the justice they deserve because our justice system is too scared to take risks.
Even though there is a trial, 4% of people convicted of murder are innocent. Do we get rid of the death penalty on the basis of this, or is a little collateral damage inevitable in justice unfortunately?
then you'd best hope you never piss off a girlfriend really badly in the future.
Millions of men have girlfriends and they almost never get accused of rape by those girlfriends. Most men who break up have pissed off their girlfriend. This doesn't mean that their girlfriend reports them to the police over a false rape incident.
I'm not donating spare change while you live on the streets.
I don't think I'm going to live on the streets. I'm smart enough. Most people on DART are smart enough to get jobs in the future.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
RM is fine with talking about his ideas. DART has no safe spaces.
Created:
I meant affirmative action
Black people and other minorities should not have advantages in the college process on the basis of race. They got to earn it like everyone else. Putting a minority in Harvard when they aren't qualified for that (because them like most whites aren't smart enough to go to Harvard) makes them more likely to drop out and not go to any college, which harms minorities in the long run. It also harms the whites who were unable to get into Harvard despite being qualified because someone else had skin color privilige. The only people who should go to Harvard are those who are smart enough to go there, regardless of race.
encouraging cultures to intermingle
You mean assilimination, which is something the right promotes more than the left as the left prefers, "multiculturalism" which leads to different cultures in a country which leads to separatist movements, which can cause a war which the left is against, but multiculturalism can lead to wars for independence on cultural grounds. This is how Austria Hungary broke up.
fighting against discrimination of many kinds
This is vauge.
reducing the stigma on mental health and things along those lines
This is also vauge as being autistic isn't really stigmatized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Based on the study, the false reporting rate is at a minimum 1.5% and at maximum 90%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#:~:text=DiCanio%20(1993)%20states%20that%20while,of%202%25%20to%2010%25.
Wiki's numbers are all over the place, so on this issue, I don't think they are an accurate source since they aren't being consistent with their claim.
So, for the tens of thousands of guys who get false accusations and are now unemployable and their families disown them, what is your message?
I don't think it's tens of thousands of guys every year, but I'd probably the group of falsely accused people them that it's better for them to be in jail (because rapists should get life in jail or a punishment influenced by the victims (death penalty isn't an option)) then for genuine rapists that outnumber them over 230 to one to be running free raping more people, just like it's better to have one innocent person locked up than one guilty murderer roaming free because that murderer could kill way more people than one innocent person being locked up.
Created:
R888d615ddf956dd87bdd06f35e9aa3b8 (655×451) (bing.com) is what happens when a government tries to fix poverty by giving people handouts. The poverty rate stagnates after falling for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Evidence can't be gathered with rape accusations. DNA expires. Rape victims have a strong urge to shower after their rape (it's ideal if they didn't have this urge, but they shower after their rape). You'd have this urge too if a sweaty rapist was on you for a few hours.
Moreover, if males are 230x more likely to get raped than being falsely accused of rape (and for females, this multiplier is even higher), I'd say it's better to jail one innocent person than to let 230 rapists walk free and commit collectively thousands of additional rapes.
Created:
How many people have you blocked?
Created:
Posted in:
I also don't want people forfeiting rounds, so there should be a deterrence for forfeiting, but it should be separate from conduct.
Created:
You blocked me; me giving pushback is harassment until you unblock me.
Created:
So then are you wanting people to respond to it? If you post politics online, expect pushback and don't complain when you get it.
Created:
Then who does this apply too?
Created:
You blocked me, so I shouldn't respond to you directly, but unblock me and I can respond.
Created:
Posted in:
I support the believe women movement because all genders (men and women) are significantly more likely to be raped than they are to be falsely accused of rape.
FactCheck: Men are more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape – Channel 4 News states the following about the subject:
But from what we can tell: yes, men are more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape.
According to the most reliable data we have, the average adult man in England and Wales aged 16 to 59 has a 0.03 per cent chance of being raped over the course of a year (based on 2016-17 figures).
The best data we have — the number of people prosecuted for making false allegations — suggests that the average adult man in England and Wales has a 0.00021281 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year. (That’s based on 35 prosecutions for false rape allegations in 2011 compared to 16.5 million men aged 16 to 59 living in England and Wales at the time).
By this measure, a man is 230 times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape.
And many conservatives don't support believe women out of the fear that some are innocent. However, most conservatives also support the death penalty even though there is a chance that some convicts are innocent. I am willing to take a little bit of risk to secure justice.
Created:
Posted in:
Arguments - 3 points
Sources - 2 points
Spelling and Grammer - 1 pt
Conduct - 1 pt
I think there should be a 5th category: Forfeited rounds and it's worth 1 to 2 points.
This is different from conduct because conduct should refer to ad hommein attacks. Forfeited rounds would be seperate. If both debaters finish all their rounds, it's a tie in this category. If someone forfeits a round, this could have been due to lack of time, so they shouldn't lose a conduct point; people aren't future predictors. Instead, they lose the points in Forfeited rounds.
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
How do Backwarsden and Brother D Thomas agree? One is super atheist. The other is super christain.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Good point; I change my religious stance a lot. It's always good to be learning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Here is his profile:
I want to see Backwarsden and Brother D Thomas wear each other out.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
All of these "prophecies" lack one crucial thing, an expiration date.
I don't think keeping track of time was a big concept when David was around because the calendar was invented after David was alive.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
@Timid8967
Both of you made good points, I'll think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But .1% of germs always survive.......If one believes the statistics.
.1% of germs survive, but this is barely any germs, so your hands are basicly clean.
I think that 99.9% is somewhat arbtirary.
I'd expect the number to be somewhat close to the truth.
Created:
Does the following pro god argument stand up to scrutiny:?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Communism necessarily doesn't have a state.
Yeah it does. How else are you going to take rich people’s money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But if out of both of us, one person fits into a category that only .1% of the population fits into, it’s likely that more than .1% of the population fits in that category.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it would be good comic relief if he were to argue with someone like Brother D Thomas. Then the rest of us get to relax.
Created:
To combat climate change, I think people should decide for themselves what energy source they want. If you like solar power, buy solar panels. If you like wind power, buy wind turbines. If you want cheap energy, buy your energy where it is cheapest. We live in a country where most of the advocates for renewable power don't have it themselves. I think it's hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It's hard for Americans to justify refusing immigrants, staple of an idea that the concept 'is in our nation.But why apply the concept so thoroughly to countries/cultures/people, established for so long?
I want open borders not because America is a nation of immigrants, but because it would make this nation rich as hell. China wouldn't stand a chance against our economy built up on immigrant steroids boi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
In Norway, we don't do that. We prefer paying for their housing while letting them or forcing them to do nothing. We also disallow people to work at all until they get accepted as Norwegians, which can take many years. I guess its the fault of our system and not the immigrants or immigration in general.
I guess this is why people prefer to move to America than Norway. People want to earn their place in society. God bless America and the economic and social liberties protected in the constitution.
Created: