Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Don't they know that poor people are immoral and deserve to stay in poverty?
The war on poverty failed in getting the poor people out of poverty. They need jobs. The American dream is independence from the government, not government handouts.
Created:
Posted in:
The 2nd amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed". Bearing arms is open carry. It therefore should be legal in all 50 states. Make America armed again.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm voting for Jo Jorgenson. Biden and Trump:
-Will keep us in wars.
-Increase our debt by a lot.
-Are sexual abusers.
-Part of the establishment.
So neither one of them got my vote.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Its phase denotes a reproducible phenomena in all human development
But the cells aren't specialized at 3 weeks into pregnency, so it would be like a cancer cell.
Created:
-->
@AddledBrain
Why be so hurried for a wrong decision to be made ?
Because the fetal cells specialize at 6 weeks into pregnency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If your against welfare but on it and don't want to get off of it, that's hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think you should get off of welfare and become independent of government assistance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why? Ad hommin attacks are poor conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why should it be the responsibility of charity?
The charity consents to give food to people. The taxpayer doesn't consent. Homeless people should get their food from charities.
this is an inequality at the root of our republic. the rules of the game are rigged.
Inequality is inheritably neutral. If the poor in society make $15,000 a year and the rich make $1 million a year, that's better than everyone making $10,000 a year. Inequality is inheritely neutral. What matters is overall success.
In California, they tried to tax the rich a lot. Their tax hike only effected really rich people which is what the progressives claim will happen. The rich and people in general are fleeing to states like Texas, taking their jobs with them. Hopefully Texas doesn't turn into California. California has made people more equal ... more equally poor. Bring Freedom back to California.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
we are a soverign country
So what?
it doesn't follow that me saying we should take care of our own means we should also give to other countries.
We should trade with other countries to get them out of poverty. We shouldn't give them free money.
food stamps are like a 100 billion a year of our budget out of a 25 trillion economy, and we also have vast surpluses of food
We can save $100 billion by implementing policies that allow the poor people to get food not paid for by the government. They can go to soup kitchens that cook food that's expired for a day so it's not going to cost the federal government money.
can you just be a humane human for a second and realize that if resources aren't distributed fairly that giving some resources to those who have none isn't such a bad thing?
They can get food via charities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
If land was generated the same way wealth is, then places like the UAE would have to give much of the land that they generated to other countries to make it equal. But taking from the rich keeps poor people dependent on the government. It failed in California. California has a failed economy because of high taxes and governmental programs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Anyway, you're proposal necessarily involves prohibiting legislature from passing laws.
They just make a law that bans food stamps. How hard is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
You don't build up the poor by tearing down the rich. California tried that and their economy is going to fail miserably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
There are many federal laws not in the constitution. An example is it is illegal to drive drunk in all 50 states. This is a federal law that is not in the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
I think food stamps should be banned because they encourage dependence on taxpayers without their consent and there are other ways for poor people to get food like soup kitchens, which are fine with giving food out to poor people.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The US military could kill you without you ever even seeing them with a drone.
The US military would rather enslave people than kill them with drones. The Nazis could have bombed Jewish houses but they instead chose to enslave Jews because it was profitable.
if the military decided to back the government, then it doesn't matter how many rifles you own, they would win.
You sure about that? There are more armed civilians in the US than there are soliders.
So if we ban one type of gun, then obviously we would ban all of them, right?
If we ban certain guns, people get used to it. When there is another mass shooting that happened with a handgun, people would want to ban that gun as well. It's much easier to add new gun restrictions than it is to remove existing ones.
so your argument is that people will be exposed to something, realize it isn't that bad, and make an informed choice about other things? And you want to prevent them from being able to make a choice?
I didn't say that. I'm saying that if we ban certain guns, then people will get used to it. When there is another mass shooting that takes place, people are going to want to ban whatever gun was used in the shooting. When that gun is banned, some less powerful gun will be used in a shooting. People will want that banned. We see this in the U.K. Guns are very hard to get in the UK. When criminals resorted to stabbing people they wanted to kill, the UK is talking now about banning knives.
No matter how much you disarm people, there will always be murder. It is what it is.
if you can't kill a bear without an automatic weapon, then you have no business hunting. You can absolutely kill a bear with a shotgun or a semi-auto hunting rifle.
I don't think this is the case. Bears have tough armor. I'd rather arm yourself with the best gun you can get so you can kill the bear and save your life.
We don't have to allow someone to go on shooting rampages with automatic weapons just because there is also an issue with handguns.
We don't allow anyone to shoot anyone else period. But we can allow them to have the AK 47 to protect themselves. When Bill Clinton banned them in 1994, it had little impact on overall homicide. AK 47 bans don't work.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your dinky AR isn't going to mean a damn thing compared to the US military, and the heavily militarized police.
It worked previously. The Nazi government for example, didn't bomb Jewish households in order to kill them; they just took their guns and sent them off to concentration camps. The Chinese government didn't bomb the houses of people they didn't like, they just took their guns and sent them off to concentration camps. For some reason, the government doesn't like to bomb houses but if the government became tyranical, they would disarm us and send the people they don't like in concentration camps. We already see this in the United States with undocumented immigrants since in my state, I don't think they don't let undocumented immigrants have guns. If they are allowed to have guns, then deportations would plummet.
That's like saying if we ban rape, then all sexual acts will be banned.
Rape is violent, consensual sex isin't. Violent things that hurt people physically are banned to the best of my knowledge.
Or, if we allow gay marriage, then people could marry anything.
The number of people who support legalized polygamy for instance (something that I support in the name of freedom, but this is off topic) has increased dramatically since gay marriage was legalized. I predict eventually polygamy will be legal just like gay marriage is right now.
No one needs to own an assault rifle for any legitimate purpose.
There are some uses to owning a gun that can fire bullets very quickly; an example is they can be used in hunting if you see a bear in the woods. You can't kill a bear with a shotgun or a pistol. If I were a hunter in that situation, I would want an AK 47 to protect me against the bear.
a mass shooting with an AR is extremely bloody.Lots of people also die with conventional homicide. Overall though, mass shootings account for a very small portion of homicides and all "assault weapons" are responsible for about 4% of homicides. I'd say the overall homicide rate is a bigger problem than mass shootings because homicide encompasses mass shootings.
Created:
I say no. They provide protection against the following:
- The biggest mass shooter in history; tyrannical governments.
- It sets a precedent to ban all guns in the nation once people get used to certain gun bans. Canada for instance allows cities to ban hand guns now or Treadeau wants to get that done.
They are also responsible for very little crime. When Bill Clinton banned these guns in 1994 for 10 years, it had very little impact on homicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
bruh ppl with their houses near the ocean could just sell their houses move
Who would they sell their houses too? Wouldn't whoever lives in the house suffer the sea level rise that would happen because of climate change?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Contraception reduces abortions. We should make contraception as easy to get as possible. It's also much cheaper than forcing some woman to be pregnant for 9 months.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you familiar with the concept "crisis pregnancy center"?
No. What do they do?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If you don't like abortions, don't have one
Don't want to rape, don't rape then. Since rape infringes on the rights of a third party, it should be banned. Since abortion does the same thing, it also should be banned until a cell specializes.
I care about mother lives as well.
If the woman did not want to become pregnant, she should have used an IUD or birth control. The man should also use a condom when having sex.
And yeah, in a better society abortions don't need to exist because life can be sustained through machinery as well as that foster care is better. If those right-wing assholes care at least a little more about foster care instead of bluffing their bills on banning abortion the world will be much better.
I think most foster care kids end up fine, with up to 96% of them getting adopted within 5 years of them entering the system. I met some people that were adopted and they are very chill, level headed and nice. It's anacadotal, but I think most foster kids end up fine, unless they were in an abusive home when they remembered stuff. Newborn foster kids don't remember any abusive home, so they end up fine I think.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Why does cell specialization justify coercing its mother to gestate a fetus (a manifestation of prohibiting abortion)?
Because a fetus with specialized cells is a human being.
Why is a zygote not human despite its having a human genome?
Because it resembles cancer if the cells aren't specialized.
How is selecting these divisions of human development in which to sanction or prohibit abortion not merely arbitrary?
Because cell specialization isn't arbitrary. It's when you become a human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We should do more trade with them, but we do trade with a lot of nations that are still poor(like Mexico). Getting the canal can make the locals more on par with the Americans.
Created:
-->
@Athias
When does it stop being her choice?
At 6 weeks in; when the fetal cells specialize.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you're going to have sex, make sure that you've got a condom.
Condoms and an IUD. If the partner has HIV, then add PreP.
Why do you expect that "the girl" should be the one that takes responsibility for your sexual urges.
Girls get horny too. Both the male and the female should take precautions.
Condoms...No invasive procedures necessary....Buy online if you're to embarrassed to go to the store and always have one in your pocket for that opportune moment.
An IUD is less invasive than an abortion is.
I would suggest that irresponsible men are perhaps the biggest cause of unwanted pregnancy, and yet the girl is the one that always has to carry the can.... And yet males seem to be the biggest pontificators on abortion issues.
There are many pro life men but there are also many pro life women. There is very little correlation between abortion stance and gender.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why not? Contraceptions reduce abortions more than banning them has done on an international scale. It's why Africa has a higher abortion rate than Europe despite abortions being banned on the continent. Contraception should be a western fruit; i.e. something that the west does that no other civilization does that everyone should do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can you make independent a political ideology? I think it used to be there.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'd draw the line at cell specialization, around 6 weeks into pregnency.
If pain mattered to intrinsic value, than it would be justified to kill anybody you hate via any painless method. We don't shoot people for being on welfare, even though they are a burden to society similar to how a fetus is a burden to a mother.
And if the mother doesn't want the kid, it's what adoption is for.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well I am generally pro-choice but just aborting no matter what isn't moral at all.
Where would you draw the line?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think abortions should be banned beyond 6 weeks into pregnancy; it's when the cells specialize. But I would focus on contraception in order to hopefully kick abortions off of the face of the planet.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think I can wait until marraige, but given that 97% of people don't wait, I can't effectively force it on everyone else.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Only 3% of the US population waits until marriage to have sex, so most Christian conservatives also don't wait until marriage. If your going to have sex, make sure the girl is on a working IUD or something to prevent an abortion from taking place.
Created:
I think they should support free contraception. It reduces abortions by a huge amount.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The US currently has 4% of the world population, and our native population is dying. If anything, the Third World should be having less kids, not us.
I think the third world is reducing their fertility rates. We need to get people in the third world contraception to reduce their poverty and abortion count.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
F**k the locals, U.S.A. knows best.
The locals would get out of poverty by trading more with the US. We get a canal. It's a win win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The locals don't have to all agree, just a plurality have too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
our gdp may be at record high but our poverty rate hasnt moved since the 60's
That's probably because of Lyndon B Johnson's failed governmental programs, but this is off topic. Trade with the Panamanians would lift them out of poverty. It's what trade does.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A conception, they have DNA, but so does a cancer cell. I therefore would draw the line at 6 weeks in, when the cells specialize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If the locals approve, you've just invaded the area peacefully. I don't see why they would disapprove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If we take back just the canal, we tried to take just the canal before, but the locals took it back. We need the whole territory to make sure that we don't lose the canal. The UK only took part of the Irish island and now Ireland wants all of it. If we take just the canal, Panama will want it back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm sure Panama would like to become part of the US; the locals get out of poverty, they become more like Puerto Rico, and they get free movement to the US.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You can't be entirely pro life and pro choice at the same time. Pro life means abortion should be banned.
Created: