linate

would you choose to live forever or as long as possible? would you choose to die sooner than later, to experience heaven? would you drag out dying for eons and then maybe decide to die?

i don't know if it's been mentioned, but it would be good for the site to get it high on google's search of debate websites. 

so ya'll who are against assisting the migrants in any way, do you propose just letting them starve and kill each other? you don't see any viable way to avoid that?

i am against migrants coming to seek refuge in the usa. their culture is the main reason i am against it. but i always said we can help other countries who do decide to help them. you might even call it 'bribing' them. we see there are only so many migrants out there. 

"Moreover, most of the growth in the global population of international migrants has been caused by movements toward high-income countries, which host 64 million of the 85 million migrants added since 2000. The number of international migrants includes 26 million refugees or asylum seekers, or about 10% of the total.Dec 18, 2017"

what if we paid whatever country that takes them, two dollars a day to pay the refugees who can then spend the money? that quote that i think that there are only between one and two million migrants per year. the math comes out to maybe one or two billion dollars in cost. the payments can be temporary until those economies can assimilate the migrants. 

see, i think the global population will eventually level out, as many expect. just like happens in developed countries. what we have in the mean time, though, is food insecure places with people needing to find secure places to go. instead of just casting these people to lala land, we help the free market take it all in. see, i'm not against immigration, i'm just against large amounts beyond what we already do, because that could be disruptive.... it has to be gradual. eventually, the world populations will level out. i'm sure we can't all live like americans do now, but atl east people will be able to live. 

i suppose if i'm willing to pay other countries to take them, it might be easier to just pay two dollars a day to people where they live to stimulate those economies. they say we only need to spend around thirty billion a year to solve hunger. that's a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend, with our GDP being over twenty trillion. 

there are of course kinks that would need to be worked out. but this is all a good start, isn't it?

medicare for all will improve most people's lives. preserving the safety net against hard line republicans, is the right thing to do. a lot of republicans want to get rid of social security and medicare for seniors, so that's something that should be put on the liberal side as well. 

ddo debate.org

at least, it's not currently being over run by bots. it lacks a lot of participation, but all it needs to become normal again is people to start using it again.

it all depends on the definition on what to call a newborn. but if we use common definitions in use, babies are better called agnostic. 

atheist means to reject god. agnostic means to be neutral about god. babies don't reject god, but can be said to be neutral. 

to be sure, there are all kinds of definiitions such that atheists can be just defined as lacking belief and agnostic requires a belief, which babies don't have, and thus called atheist. but in common parlance, as said.... atheist means to reject and agnostic means to be neutral. 

do you agree that criminals are more likely to kill if they have a gun? a lot of conservatives would say that it's true, yet try to say non-criminals never are more likely. but the world isn't magically split between criminals and not. normal people become criminals. not saying this as a reason to ban guns, but as the point that we have to remember that people are more likely to kill if they have a gun, when we are considering who shouldn't be allowed to have them. 

also, if people will just find another means to kill, or will run out and get guns illegally, why bother at all to ban criminals from having guns?

what do you think about the stat that if you compare the usa to at least other english countries, if you remove guns homicides, our homicide rate is almost the same? this stat is hard to get around. guns make our country less safe. 

i think a person could argue people who are violent or in high crime areas are more likely to get a gun, and thus are more liklely to use it. but this techncially would still mean that people with guns are more likley to kill, yet people try to argue that that's not the case. 

on the 'defensive gun use' point, there are many more studies that low ball the number

like DDO had. so we can all post our funny antics from time to time. 

do you view the two matthew verses as being different? or how do you reconcile them?

are there different standards of the golden rule? or different standards for how to treat others, according to Jesus?

Matthew 22 

"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

when i think of treating others as myself, i think of what is mine is theirs such as they can have everything i have. when i think of treating others as you'd have them do unto you, i think of 'well i don't expect people to give me everything of theirs so it shouldn't be expected for me to give everything'. 

these seem like different standards.

of course, it's possible to read one as if it's the other, but which interpretation is best? i do know Jesus said to give away all that you own if you want to be perfect. i dont know if he was talking to just that person's calling in life, or if it's a standard for everyone, but it's usually treated like a standard for everyone. so maybe 'love as oneself' is best? people tend to not take the 'give it all away' thing too seriously, and even if it's serious, it's temperered with the practical concern of being able to support oneself. 

people can legit disagree about where to draw the line when preventing people from having guns. but i'm arguing that it shouldn't be part of the debate whether the gun will increase the likelihood of murder. it does increase, so a person shouldn't just think "well they will kill whether or not they have a gun, so why stop them at all?" 

if you don't think a gun increases the likelihood of murder, why don't you argue that? why prevent an absuive dude from having a gun if he's just going to kill his wife either way?

the only point i'm trying to make is that owning a gun causes some people to be more likely to kill someone than if they don't have a gun. you contested this. i showed you the data that says otherwise. now, you don't show the data to be wrong, but choose to change the subject. i will address your points, but it is noted that you have not refuted that basic premise. 
(at the very least you would have to concede that having a weapon increases the likelihood of death. i dont know what they would show if they did a study to show the liklihood of death with any weapon around. but we have to at least see that weapons incrase murder chances, and that at least includes guns. the sentence at the beginning of this paragraph of being more likely to murder with a gun, is true)

yes i agree that the biggest likelihood of death is previous abuse. with that said, it doesn't mean a gun doesn't cause increased likelihood of death. also with that said, the world again is not magically split between those who are crminals and those who aren't. normal people become abusive. i'm not saying normal people shouldn't have guns, but when we are considering where to draw the line in who should have guns, we should remember that having the gun will cause some people to be more likely to kill someone, so it's at least a consideration. maybe he beat his wife twice, but the judge thought his 'right' to a gun protects him?

yes i agree a lot of those guys probably got their gun illegally. with that said, not everyone who is denied a gun is going to run out and get one. that's just common sense. and, for those that dont just run out and get one...... if you don't have a gun when you go off on your spouse, you aren't as likely to kill them. 

so what i'm getting at is if common sense doesn't do it for you, look at science. both indicate what i've been arguing. 

"consistent with other research,3,23,15,24,25 gun availability still had substantial independent effects that increased homicide risks. "

they are bluntly stating that guns cause an increased risk of death.... "the 8-fold increase in intimate partner femicide risk associated with abusers’ access to firearms attenuated to a 5-fold increase when characteristics of the abuse were considered, including previous threats with a weapon on the part of the abuser. This suggests that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse."

they also say " our analysis and those of others suggest that ... restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide." 

if what you say is true, they wouldn't be talking about removing guns from the situation, they'd just say they should avoid violent relationships. 

the point of the study is to show that some people are more likely to kill another if they have a gun. you might say it's obvious that violent or criminal people are more likely to kill. but the world isn't magically split between those people and everyone else. normal people become criminals and violent, sometimes, too. so, the point is that a gun can cause some people to kill more often. people try to weasel out of that but that's just the way it is. 

i have other evidence i can share later, but the above point seems pretty clear. if a wife beater has a gun, he is more likely to kill his wife than if he doesn't have a gun.

this isn't rocket science. 

since you can't or won't read what i wrote or your own link, i will say it again. the definition of a mass shooting is over four people killed, not including the gunman. the example you gave shows a man killing his wife and three kids, and then himself. 

there has been a recent mass shooting but for over twenty years there were none. that is defining a mass shooting as more than four people not including the gun man. if you still think you've debunked NBC news that i posted, then by all means write a counter article and claim your prize. 

'no mass shootings in twenty years - how'd they do it?'

well, the consensus among scientists is that gun control saves lives. it's also common sense. it's amazing all the hoops you guys jump through when faced with the overwhelming evidence, in the following link, of that, and that guns cause deaths in society when they otherwise wouldn't occur without the guns. 

i'm talking about mass shootings. apparently you are talking about regular homicides. but even if there was a spike right after the ban is irrelevant.... the only thing that went up is the pure number of homicides, not the rate. the rate of homicide went down consistently after the new gun law.

but anyways id rather talk about mass shootings, cause the above stuff should be hashed by now

australia had about one mass shooting a year before 1996. then, they did a bunch of gun control in that year, and for decades after, they hadn't had a mass shooting. that's too big of a coincidence to say it's just an anomoly. the gun control included gun buy backs, outlawing certain types of guns, controlling how to store guns, among other things 

discuss

cigarettes after sex     apocalypse 

i never thought the dems would have impeached trump before, cause i thought cooler heads would prevail in that there was nothing to get him for other than being not popular. but now that cohen testified that trump is a co-felon, i'm sure the dems would jump on that chance to impeach him. 

history.com and all the academic websites say the ciivil war was about slavery. hisotyr.com says if you asked people back then what the war was about, they'd say slavery. that means the only difference between germany erecting statues of hitler and the south raising confederates, is that one fought for genocide and the other fought for slavery. that's also why it's not like the statues of washington,... he just happened to have a slave, but he's known for a lot of other good things. if the south had other decent reasons for the war then it would be like washington- it'd be like if the usa lost the revolutionary war yet kept statues of washington. but that isn't the reality we are dealing with. people engage in revisionist thinking, and anachronistically say the war was about states' rights looking back on it, but that's not what the people or the leaders said was the reason for the war. 

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery " the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in its articles of war

""Whatever else I may forget," the ex-slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in 1894, "I shall never forget the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery." Douglass (who is doing an amazing job and is being recognized more and more) deplored an emerging national consensus that the Civil War had been fought over vague philosophical disagreements about federalism and states" rights, but not over the core issue of slavery. In this retelling, neither side was right or wrong, and both Confederate and Union soldiers were to be celebrated for their battlefield valor.

Douglass was right to be concerned. Southerners may have lost the Civil War, but between the 1890s and 1920s they won the first great battle over its official memory. They fought that battle in popular literature, history books and college curricula, but also on hundreds of courthouse steps and city squares, where they erected monuments to Confederate veterans and martyrs. These statues reinforced the romance of reunion.

Now, a century and a half after the Civil War, Americans are finally confronting the propriety of celebrating the lives of men who committed treason in the name of preserving slavery. That these statues even exist is unusual. When armies are defeated on their own soil"particularly when those armies fight to promote racist or genocidal policies"they usually don"t get to keep their symbols and material culture. As some commentators have noted, Germany in 1945 is a useful comparison. "Flags were torn down while defeated cities still burned, even as citizens crawling from the rubble were just realizing that the governments they represented had ended," wrote a reporter for McClatchy. Most physical relics of the Nazi regime were banished from public view. In this sense, the example of Germany"s post-war de-Nazification may offer a way forward for the United States.

Yet history tells a more complicated story. In its initial years, de-Nazification had only limited impact. It would take time, generational change and external events to make Germany what it is today"a vibrant democracy that is notably less permissive of racism, extremism and fascism than the United States. Tearing down the symbols of Nazi terror was a necessary first step"but it didn"t ensure overnight political or cultural transformation. It required a longer process of public reconciliation with history for Germans to acknowledge their shared responsibility for the legacy of Nazism.

The vast majority of Americans have long agreed that the destruction of slavery was a just outcome of the Civil War. But in continuing to honor Confederate leaders and deny their crimes, we signal that the United States has not yet fully come to terms with its collective responsibility for the dual sins of slavery and Jim Crow."

the following is a politifact article that is responding to people who claimed the war was about more than slavery as "obvious if you research it". so politfact did research it, and came to the same conclusion that it was was about slavery....
http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/103590/3/#2870466

here is the article

for more on this....

also check out the video with the man lying prostrate in front of trump's image. 

i think if a person wanted to 'disprove' God, it would be a stronger argument to argue my 'unlimited paradox' that i mentioned in the philosophy forum, and briefly here. "if god is unlimited can he limit himself?" i dont know how you can get out of that paradox. as was said, you might have to say "God is maximally powerful". 

so to conclude, i'd say the rock paradox doesn't disprove God as omnipotent. because, if God is logical, he would have to follow my criteria in the opening post, and this would assume logical and omnipotence can go together. if God can be illogical, then how can a person use logic to disprove him? i dont think they could, so God as omnipotent would still exist here too. 

what if someone believes Jesus was the messiah and rose from the dead but don't believe Jesus dying saved him? or in some other way they 'believe in' Jesus that doesn't include the specific things you list? as i said in my opening post, the bible says if you believe Jesus is lord and that he rose from the dead, you will be saved, or if you 'believe in' him you will be saved. are you contradicting the bible, or are you injecting more into what it means to believe Jesus is 'lord' or 'believe in' him?

you assume that any omnipotent God must be able to be illogical. if we hold God to be logical, and assume he could still be omnipotent being logical.... then he can't do both. if we assume God can be illogical then anything can be inferred at all. 

isn't saying 'no' saying there is a limit on the unlimited and thus negating itself?

if you answer that the entity can limit itself, then you are saying it's not truly unlimited. yet, if you answer that the entity can't limit itself, it's still not unlimited. it's a paradox.

if unlimited entities exist, how do you reconcile this paradox?

or, if you think about existence and the universe as we know it, we know it is all finite, so maybe that plus the paradox are indicators that unlimited things just don't exist?

Can an Omnipotent God create a rock he cannot lift? it is said that If one answers yes to the question, then God is therefore not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock, but if one answers no to the question, God is no longer omnipotent because he cannot create the rock.my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can't do both at the same time. and, that he can't do both at the same time doesn't disprove God as omnipotent.

to answer this, we need to ask another question. what happens when an immovable rock meets the unstoppable force of God?the issue-- the paradox arises because it rests on two premises- that there exist such things as immovable rocks and unstoppable forces - which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable rock, and vice versa.so the key then is "at once". to ask if God can create both scenarios at once is a logical impossibility. God cannot do the logically impossible.if God creates the immovable rock, he cannot be an unstoppable force. and if God acts as the unstoppable force, he cannot create an immovable rock. he must choose which scenario exists at any given time. and, in fact, the fact that he would be able to choose the scenario, highlights the underlying omnipotence of God to begin with.to highlight the time element. if God made a rock that could not be lifted for a week, then for a week he could not lift it. when we merely say God can make the rock, but then he can lift it, we are assuming that the time has elapsed such that God is able to then 'switch gears' and lift it. when we add a time element such as "a week" it highlights that there are in fact restrictions if God makes that rock.we have to suppose that God knows what he's doing when he makes decisions like that to prevent lifting it for a week. and, this is a matter of consistency.... it is like dropping a ball or not. i can say i won't drop a ball, and if i am consistent as i would imagine God is, then i won't drop the ball. if he creates the rock, whether or not he can lift it, he probably won't lift it for as long as he says he won't. not that he couldn't.

i think at the end of the day you can say God can both make the rock and lift it, if your premise is right that God can be illogical. but that's another debate. i'm assuming God must be logical. 

it's sort of like asking. "can the unlimited limit itself? if you answer yes, then it's not truly unlimited, though if you answer no it's still not unlimited". i call that the 'unlimited paradox'

required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear, the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic.

the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements.i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things?what or where exactly is the threshhold?if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise.what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc.ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. you'll note a different answer pretty much every time.some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary.some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory.and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play?so what's the magical formula?

christians don't usually do a good job defending jesus as god based on the bible. but it is there, if you look.....

Romans 9:5 - ...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Titus 2:13-15 - ...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Hebrews 1:8 - But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever"

2 Peter 1:1 - ...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

at the beginning of the book of John... "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Jesus became flesh and dwelt amoung us.. Jesus is the word.In John,

Jesus at one point says "unless you believe that I AM he, you will surely perish in your sins". only God is ever referenced to as I AM, and Jesus and everyone else knew it.

it sounds like something a brain dead liberal would try to argue, that there aren't races. of course there is. call a spade a spade. michael Jordan is black, from the black race. larry bird is white, from the white race. there are people in between but that does't mean the general rule doesn't exist. 

"differences on the genetic level"

you could have distilled your rant down to this as it's the only thing that might possibly make sense.  of course there are different races. there are black people and there are white people. sure everyone is a mutt to some degree but you'd have to be stupid to think there isn't a difference. also, even with your criteria, why is someone racist just because he understands that sciences says there are different genetics involved with the races? black people have different health concerns than white people, for instance, sometimes. the list goes on. i think if you starting saying something about prejudice and genetics or superiority, then maybe you'd be on to something. that is exactly how the dictinoary defines racist, involving prejudice or superority complexes. 

how do ya'll define racist? my main criteria is 'unjustified prejudice'. in my examples, he had prejudice that wasn't justified based on skin color only, pretty much. the examples weren't exactly malicious, but they were prejudicial. 

he says things that are racist, but that doesn't mean he is one.

he says a mexican judge can't be neutral because he is mexican. he said obama wasn't born in the usa. the only thing basis in both cases that trump had to say anything was color of skin. it's an unjustified prejudice, even if he's not fully aware of it. 

what reasons do you have to think he's racist? not a racist?

do you think he has no racist views?

good point. but trump never had high approval rating. and, in any case, the current system still causes fringe candidates to get into power. my proposed system would broaden the base of support necessary to get to the point of being president. 

also i think it might just come down to whether or not the government can pick and choose wisely what parts of the health sector to reduce reimbusements on. i don't like if there's no clear cut rule we can employ, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. 

for example. you say drug providers aren't a problem. you say ninety percent of drugs are generic as proof that they aren't a problem. the thing is, i know of drugs that are generic that cost hundreds of dollars. i dont know if there's an underlying reason they have to cost that much, but i dont see a reason,and i would suppose like luxory cars and name brand stuff, it's just a mark up that isn't necessary. kind of like how pharma boy got in the news for running up the price of the epi pen. there was no underlying need for the added cost.... he just did it because he can. so, my point that i was getting to, is that the government would have to be wise enough to pick which sectors to cut back on and which not to. i admit i dont know if the government is competent enough to do this, but i think it could be done right.  same goes for medical equipment providers. i dont know if an MRI machien needs to cost two hundred grand. but this might be an unjustified mark up. and, same goes for MRI prcedures from hospitals.... they might be able to skim some off the top to pull it off without hurting hospitals too much. 

thanks for the hospital profit margin information. i wasnt aware of that. but you aren't making the case that people should remain uninsured.

if we give them something to pay with, someone is going to take the money and give them service.

if the current rate is two thousand patients per doctor, we can give them a patient per day more, or a ten percent increase to match the ten percent uninsured rate, and someone is going to take the money. this sort of maneouver might not work out so well for some business models, but the bottom line point is that we give people access first and ask questions later. they will still have the same profit margins albeit with just seeing more patients to pull it off. that sector will adjust to accomodate, even if there are some losers in the process. 

also, alternatively, we could give the uninsured and poor medicaid, and some doctor will take the bait. these paitents might have to wait in line, but it's not like they have no access. i actually strongly support this, but i know it wouldn't be politically popular. 

alternatively, we could just spend a little more for healthcare. if that means we spend twenty percent of our GDP on healthcare instead of 18 percent, so be it. at least people have healthcare.

if we have the money, someone will take it, bottom line. 

i dont know what point was served by you pointing to a bunch of articles showing that the uninsured run up costs on medical providers. this is irrelevant. and if anything, it just shows that if we reimbursed at around the going rate for these guys, it wouldn't be a problem for providers. 

trump and hillary had low approval ratings on election day. other candidate had higher approval ratings. most people didn't like either candidate. thus, our election system is flawed. 

here is my proposal for a ranked voting system. we have a primary where everyone marks who they want considered for president. you can list whoever you want, more than one person. the two persons with the most nominations get into a run off election between just the two of them, and the person with a majority vote wins.i'd also consider making the question "who all do you generally approve of?" instead of "who do you want considered", but i think framing the issue broader would lessen the fringes so much.

this is better because the current system should be called 'fringe voting'. a fringe plurality wanted trump or hilary to win, but most everyone else wanted neither of them. this gives too much power to candidates from the fringes. my system would broaden who's generally acceptable and has a broader base of support.my guess is it would have been kasich and sanders had we did my system, for whatever it's worth. trump might have did better than i'm guessing, though.