Total topics: 101
all i see is a bunch of 'trump did some things that look like crimes' v 'i dont know what i'm talking about either but i deny all terms and conditions, with my fingers in my ears'
trump's intent and knowledge are at the heart of this.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
the only two crimes that seem plausible is the georgia election interference, and the effort to stop the count and place false electors in the other elections. while that's a good argument for crimes, both crimes require that trump had to intend to commit the crimes. trump is a crazy sonofabitch, is he not? if anyone believes his own BS, it's trump. so maybe he didn't have the mens rea, the criminal intent, with these alleged crimes. if he's not guilty of these two crimes, i would say he should walk free.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
dont you miss the days when these were the only issues that mattered? 'merica
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
free speech is a virtue, regardless if the speech is respected by the government or by private citizens and companies.
so it seems as far as the masses move, liberals are suppose to be opposed to book bans, yet support banning conservatives on twitter. i know not everyone falls into that category, but this is the brainless overall overture, movements.
i know a lot of liberals on here support twitter banning conservatives. do you also support those who ban books? if you oppose them banning books, why do you not also oppose twitter banning conservatives?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
https://www.makeuseof.com/best-debate-sites/
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
can you prove otherwise? usually when this topic comes up, atheists just spam a bunch of alleged contradictions, but they all depend on how you interpret them. they let the debate get lost in the weeds, and they never prove the bible is full of contradictions like they claim it is.so, instead of spamming, can you find three clear contradictions that you are willing to fight are clear contradictions?
my position is also that it looks like there are a few contradictions and errors, but it depends on how you interpret the bible. for example, jesus said no one has ascended to heaven but the father, but the old testament says two men were taken up by a whirl wind to heaven. this looks like a contradiction. apologists say jesus meant no one has gone to heaven with their own strength and those two old testament men were taken up by whirlwind, not with their own strength. this superficially looks like a cop out, but it depends on the original language of the bible and how you interpret it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
i'm sympathetic to the idea that trump was president, so he can declassify whatever he wants as he wishes. even on the stuff that it didn't matter if it was classified that he wasn't suppose to have, he was still the president. that's why i'm more on the side that it was a witch hunt on the meatier charges. but obstruction of justice is different... trump had very critical docs it sounds like, and when the government tried to get them back and fix the situation, trump evaded them and tried to hide and obscure things. for that, even if we concluded that trump didnt commit a crime,it still should have been a crime that deserved punishment. this is existential and critical information we're dealing with and trump acted irresponsibly. i think the only way a person could think he didn't do anything wrong, at least ethically, is if they are clouded with bias and can't see clearly.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
the bible says Jesus said some people will experience eternal punishment. i do still think though that hell can be temporary for some people, or like purgatory. I would think God wouldn't give eternal consequences for temporary misconduct, so I would think eternal punishment is only for those who eternally separate themselves from God. we do have free will, after all. or, if the possibility for eternal life for all is true, there will always be a stain on our lives for how we act, even if we are redeemed, a stain that could still be eternal even though we're saved.
I also think God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like, you can't just keep eating a bunch of cake and not expect to gain weight. except, the consequences are spiritual when it comes to the ways of God. if you have low vibrations and are sinful, you will experiences low vibrations and consequences to sin, and a less fulfilled life.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
normally, people usually split constitutional interpretation into two camps, 'living constitution' and 'originalism'. living constitution means we can use our modern perceptions and values to determine what the text means, whereas originalism means we should only interpret the text to mean what was originally intended.
a new version i've come across is 'dynamic originalism'. this means that the core principles orginally intended should be preserved, but modern changes in context can allow for a different application of the text. i think the new justice jackson on the supreme court follows this philosophy.
so for example. originally, interracial marriage could be banned by law. but, the original context was that interracial meaning was immoral or unbliclical or that black people were inferior. but, modern sensibility differs with that. only rarely do people think blacks are inferior or that it's all immoral or unbliblical. the core value of the bible, or morality, can still be a guiding light, even though the context is different.
so what do ya'll think?
is this just a back door end run around the power of originalist thinking? i'm sure there's lots of examples where it would seem reasonable to change the application of text based on changing contexts, such as with search and seizure and probable cause etc. my guess is when you get into the weeds, it would become muddled or blurry if one were to espouse 'dynamic originalism'.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
instead of selling their investments to pay for their spending, rich people instead borrow money at super low rates. this causes them to not have to pay much in taxes. they dont have to pay capital gains taxes if they dont realize capital gains by selling. that's a big way the rich get by without paying much in taxes. we shouldn't be allowing that loop hole. they should have to pay a high tax bracket rate on the money that they borrow.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
overall spending isn't going up much, proportional to what it's been in the past as a percent of GDP, if you dont count social security and medicare. the reason spending keeps going up so much, is because congress is trying to pay back social security and medicare. it's not that all other parts of the government have gone run amok. so what are the republicans trying to do? they are trying to cut spending to the poor, and miscellaneous spending, to pay for entitlements. they're trying to give less food to poor people, to give more money to seniors. they shouldn't be doing that. what should be done, is that taxes should go up. compared to the rest of the developed world, we dont have much of a welfare state, and just looking at what benefits poor people can get... we just dont have much of a welfare state. compared the rest of the developed world, our taxes are low. granted, our bloated healthcare system and defense spending causes our overall (if you count the private sector too) spending to be similar to other countries, albeit we dont spend as much on welfare while overall spending is similar to other countries. so congress should cut into defense spending and healthcare spending (lowering medical reimbursement rates for example) to help pay for increasaed spending. but most importantly, the rich should be paying more in taxes, too. it's not right that rich people pay less in taxes than their secretaries.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
trump is the king of culture warriors. he's the ultimate bully, he's an alpha male. folks like ron desantis shouldn't be trying to focus so much on trying out do trump on that turf, cause they'll lose every time. desantis, for example, got a lotta legislation passed, that doesn't have to do with the culture wars. he should focus on that... all these guys should be focusing more on concrete ways that they have improved people's lives, and to focus on their proposals for how they will continue to improve people's lives.
the liberal in me thinks they dont focus on those kind of details, cause they are weak on the details that will improve people's lives. as is common these days, both sides of the political aisle wanna keep fighting culture wars instead of things that actually matter
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
balanced budget. congress should set every item in the budget, except social security and health care, to be the same percent of GDP every year. like defense spending might be twenty percent of GDP, and it will stay that way every year even as our GDP rises.
the exception, is that congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis that deviates from this norm. by having this overall balanced budget approach, we will avoid the yearly debt ceiling fights that we see every year. those are risky, and they're not sustainable.
of course, someone will complain that GDP shrinks during recessions. historically and practically, though, that's not a big deal. as was said, congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis to deficit spend even more so. but just as importantly, though, is the fact that GDP doesn't shrink much during recessions, usually just a few percent. even during the great recession, GDP only shrunk 5 percent.... so, a 5 percent spending cut isn't that big of a deal. of course, during the great depression GDP shrunk 30 percent... so congress would need to use its case by case power to deal with that sorta situation, cause there are no good options during those times other than to deficit spend to stimulate the economy but maybe not too much, it's their judgment call.
the reason social security and health care are exempted, are because those are expected to change over time, given the government has been borrowing against medicare and SS and currently is trying to pay them back and demographics change over time. the thing is, with these debt ceiling fights, republicans are trying to cut say spending on say food stamps, in order to have enough money to pay social security back. that's the way our accounting is structured. that choice shouldnt exist... social security should just do its own thing and rise and fall on its own merit. it shouldn't come at the cost of other programs, such as food stamps. forcing a choice between paying seniors more and paying poor people less (or giving less food to hungry people) shouldn't be a thing that politicians do. social security can be figured out on its own and congressmen will be forced to reckon given by 2033 the trust fund is going to run out of money and can only pay 80 percent of benefits. maybe taxes on the rich can go up on their payroll tax, benefits for the rich can be cut, retirement age can go up, maybe everyone can chip in a little more on their pay roll taxes. point, solutions are out there, but it shouldn't be intermixed with other governemnt spending. one of the biggest mistakes ever congress made was borrowing against social security and medicare. and on that point, healthcare spending needs to be tackled on its own just like social security, for many of the same reasons.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
committee for a responsible budget has a quiz that lets average joe's like us to address taxes and spending decisions
what congress should do is make each congressman to fill out that quiz to a point that achieves the goal purpose, getting debt to a manageable level within thirty years. and then they will have to average out everyone's response. by doing that, debt will get to a manageable level within thirty years.
a key point, is that every congressman's decision should be open to the public. the great thing about this quiz, is that nothing on it is radical, so even if they were completely liberal or conservative, no one would be radically hurt. also, most congressmen will be forced by public pressure not to be too radical. if they attack social security, they will get attacked at the voting booth, perhaps. some congressman can escape consequnces cause their electorate doesn't care about the issues, but again, nothing on that quiz is a radical choice.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
it seems pretty clear that it's the democrats who are more likely to do so. minimum wage, housing assistance, child care, student loans, health care... everything. i admit that a lot of it goes to far and is stupid on the policy details, but it still seems clear dems are better. republicans are more obscure in helping the average person economically... what are your ideas? even immigration is more about poor americans, not average americans. what are the points that republicans have? it's more obscure, like making life good for your boss and hoping it trickles down to you, even though it probably won't.
most of politics is about the horse race and stupid cultural issues that aren't very relevant. that's the kind of stuff most of ya'll argue about.... you care cause you are told you are suppose to care.
when it comes to which party is more likely to help the average person, even if they have their problems,,, it's the dems. that's why i usually vote blue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
disney is a gun free zone. i assume there aren't a lot of murders there. yes, if it was no longer a gun free zone, maybe there would occasionally be successful self defense when attacks do occur. there's a far out chance someone will happen to have a gun to attack a mass shooter, if that ever happened.
but what seems most likely? it seems most likely that impulsive people will occasionally murder others, when they otherwise wouldn't. the ability to just push a button and people die, makes a difference in whether or not people die sometimes, considering how impulsive people are.
the bottom line. maybe letting teachers pack heat might have a good benefit, given teachers are generally morally upstanding. but in general, changing gun free zones to not gun free zones doesn't automatically sound like a slam dunk idea. i mean, often, like this disney example... it's a terrible idea.
ive been debating a lot of you guys on impulsivity and gun use, and ya'll always whimper away and dont finish the debate, or follow your own thoughts to their logical conclusions. maybe those debating me, will stick around this time, and admit their ideas dont make sense, or be so far off base that it's obvious to everyone else that that's the case.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Trump urges GOP to let catastrophic debt default happen if Dems don’t accept cutsFormer President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged Republican lawmakers to let the United States default on its debt if Democrats don’t agree to spending cuts.“I say to the Republicans out there — congressmen, senators — if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default,” said Trump, who is again running for president. “And I don’t believe they’re going to do a default because I think the Democrats will absolutely cave, will absolutely cave because you don’t want to have that happen. But it’s better than what we’re doing right now because we’re spending money like drunken sailors.”When pushed by CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins to clarify his remarks, Trump said: “Well, you might as well do it now, because you’ll do it later. Because we have to save this country. Our country is dying. Our country is being destroyed by stupid people, by very stupid people.”Trump made the remarks during a CNN town hall during which he defended his supporters who staged a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 and mocked the writer E. Jean Carroll a day after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.Trump is the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. He would likely look to use a default to his political advantage were he to face President Joe Biden in a rematch next year.His comments came weeks before the U.S. is projected to run out of cash to pay its bills unless Congress addresses the debt limit. Since January, the U.S. government has taken extraordinary measures to avoid default.A default would trigger chaos in markets and result in millions of job losses, according to analysts and economists. Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling three times during Trump’s presidency.Trump’s words could encourage his many GOP supporters in the House to harden their stance against raising the debt limit without corresponding spending cuts. Biden has said he won’t negotiate over raising the debt limit, although he said he is open to discussing ways to reduce spending in a separate context.Biden and the top four congressional leaders, including Trump supporter House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., will meet again to discuss the debt ceiling on Friday. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the U.S. government could hit the debt limit as soon as June 1.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
some christians might say that's not possible... if they are saved, they can't be unsaved. but what about free will? i think as long as you are trying to be good and have complete faith that Jesus will save you, then you will be saved. but i think if we respect free will and all the bible passages about falling away, it's possible to become unsaved. afterall, jesus said some seeds will start growing, only to wither and die due to worldly concern. and, Hebrews 10:26. ESV says 'For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins', to say they can't lose their salvation is like saying they can't choose to sin.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
some christians might say that's not possible... if they are saved, they can't be unsaved. but what about free will? i think as long as you are trying to be good and have complete faith that Jesus will save you, then you will be saved. but i think if we respect free will and all the bible passages about falling away, it's possible to become unsaved. afterall, jesus said some seeds will start growing, only to wither and die due to worldly concern. and, Hebrews 10:26. ESV says 'For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins', to say they can't lose their salvation is like saying they can't choose to sin.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
one of the foundational aspects of forgiveness is repentence. or that someone ask for it to receive it. some traditional christians like some catholics say it's not necessary to forgive everyone, or those who are unrepentent, cause God doesn't either. if we look at the eastern concept of forgiveness, it also implies reconciliation. you can only forgive those you are reconciled with. it's about establishing communion, and we can't commune with someone closed off to us.
but Jesus does say 'the measure you use will be measured to you'. which might indicate that the standard we use to forgive might be the standard God uses with us. at the end of John, he says 'whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'. catholics like to say this creates the idea of their confession, but protestants like to say this just means we have the power to save people through our preaching. neither of these ideas really fit that well, but both are compelling. we might say that if we dont forgive, they aren't forgiven, their sin is retained. between the two of you. but we have to remember that our measure will be measured to us.
to incorporate NDE philsophy, everyone can acheive salvation. maybe of legal matters, we are all forgiven. but when it comes to the eastern concept of reconciliation, it is impossible to forgive someone we can't commune with.
so, maybe in the sense that is most meaningful, we cant forgive if we can't reconcile.... but we can always be open to reconcilation if they repent, or if it's a matter of looking past brusised egos and letting bygones be bygones... or as saint paul said, 'just let it slide'.
but when it comes to legality, but we can forgive but maybe it is up to each person how they want to treat that. but i would think if we use legality against others, it could be used against us. ultimately i think it's wisest to forgive everyone, not just cause that's what we want when we are unrepentant, but because it's the godliest thing to do.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
the bible only talks about rejecting the truth as the basis of condemnation.
around the infamous john 316, it says the light didn't come to the world to condemn it, but to save it. the condemnation comes when someone perfers darkness over the light.
also in john, jesus also said 'unless you believe i am he, you will die in your sins.'. this implies a rejection.
at the end of mark jesus said, 'go and baptize the world. he who beleives and is baptized will be saved, he who doesn't will be condemned'. again, this implies rejection.
i think there's one or two other examples where rejection is implied.
there are some references to 'unbelievers' being unsaved in the new testament letters, but you have to consider whether John 316 defined unbelievers as those who reject the light for preferring darkness. it is possible to insist these unbeliever references should be taken literatlly and all unbelievers are unsaved, but i think that ignores the context i mentioned above.
we also have to consider that NDEs teach us implicitly that everyone can experience heaven, regardless of religion or creed. but i think it's important to remember that we have free will, and if we prefer darkness over light... that is what we will get.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
protestants like to say they are saved, end of discussion. catholics say you have to work out your eventual salvation... but if you look closer, they are willing to say salvation is both an event and a process. i dont think it's very standard for a protestant to say salvation can be a process?
i think the way to look at this is simply by looking at the question of 'being forgiven'. when we pray the our father, we ask as christians to be forgiven. we dont say 'thank you for forgiving me'. it's a very basic idea of repentance that's foundational... for that foundation to be off would be a wild accusation.
it's also worth noting, that the bible often talks about falling away and such. like the parable of the seeds and how jesus said some start to grow only to later wilt due to worldly concern. only some seeds grow to maturity.
it's also worth tying the 'assurance of salvation' and 'once saved always saved' ideas to the idea of salvation.
-the bible says you can know you are saved, but given all the other examples where it says you can fall away, i would say that knowing one is saved is a special gift for a special person. jesus did say 'not everyone who says to me lord lord will inherit the kingdom, but only those who do the will of the father'. it's a lot to read into this that you can't know you are saved, but we have to at least remember that acknowleding jesus as lord is not enough. i think we can all agree that just thinking you are saved isn't enough? it does get into murky territory but there's always a hypothetical mass murderer who is pathologically propensed to think he is saved.
-also, i think free will is such that a person can always loose their salvation for practical purposes, but for practical purposes some people can know they are saved, and always will be saved, practically.
to tie into this near death experience philosophy, a person can be loved unconditionally, and in that sense they are always saved, but a person still must face the consequences of their actions. like a mother unconditionally loves her children, she also must let them face their own consequences and actions. it's like near death philosophy says, we go to where our vibration permits. if we have a low vibration, out soul can be saved by becoming a genuine christian. that's all that's necessary. because you will grow into higher vibrations and god has your back. if your words are empty, you wont grow into higher vibrarations. there's a question about whether hell is eternal given near death philosphy, and most of those guys like to say hell is a prison. i think we can all agree that an eternal hell is possible given our free will, but we have to wonder the open question of if hell is eternal for practical purposes. it very well could be, or maybe not. it is central that hell does exist though. only one percent of NDEs are hellish, and they usually just consider that it was a learning experience. a wake up call.
it's interesting that 'once saved always saved', ties into salvation like that. just like how it's intersesting that 'atonement' ties into the 'justification' and salvation ideas. and lately i've been incorporating NDE philsophy as well.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
A texas gunman shoots his neighbors, including an 8 year old boy because they asked him to stop shooting his rifle in his front yard. 5 killed 3 injured.
so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of all attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?
people who think the presence of guns makes no difference in murder rate, lack critical thinking skills.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
what say ye?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
because the number of illegal immigrants in our population doesn't really go up, it just fluctuates. like, twenty years ago there were twice as many illegals here, but over the years its gone down, and just fluctuates.
i always thought a wall or good fence was a good idea, but now i'm not so sure.
(it's obvious a wall would keep some illegals out. if you hinder their access, less will come. it's idiotic of liberals to say a wall wouldn't prevent anyone from coming, just like it's idiotic of conservatives to say gun control or limiting guns wouldn't decrease murders. it's the same stupid idea, as if a fire extinguisher wouldn't lessen the extent of fires)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
this guy does a good job arguing how liberal christians are really a religion unto themselves
that is ultimately true, but every conservative chrisitan decides in their own way what is right... they disagree with tens of thousand of different belief structures.
if one posits that maybe the bible isn't the word for word word of God, then it's reasonable to consider alternative views. the guy in the link said liberal christians dont hold the bible to be true, so they cant call themselves christian... but why must the bible be true for Jesus and the religion to be true?
personally, i believe what the bible says unless i have a reason not to. that means i'm actually pretty orthodox. some things dont seem to make sense, but why throw the baby out with the bath water?
christianity is compelling in general. the apostles died for their faith. you dont see that every day. early historians called jesus a magician due to what people said about him. it was considered a fact and it's consensus that Jesus actually existed. read the new testament... it's a very authentic sounding narrative. it's compelling the poetry they speak. other religions dont have that... islam is about getting virgins at death and chopping heads off. buddism is just a philosophy and doesn't claim truth. i dont know much about hindu but it seems very random. christian NDEs with near death experiences are common... other religions are almost non existant. things that look like miraculous healings happen a lot to chrisitans... it's unheard of for atheists or other religions. christianity is about doing good and having good relationships... things science says makes for meaningful life.
my point... christianity is a compelling religion. why does the bible need to be true for the religion to be true?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
trump paid hush money to someone, a porn star, that he had sex with. his critics say that that was a move to influence his presidential campaign, so he should have used campaign funds. this seems like a technicality, something not worth pursuing. plus, i dont know the legal details, but using campaign money to pay a porn star doesn't sound legit. it looks illegal to use campaign funds for non election purposes... so basically trump could have been prosecuted no matter what he did, but the path they're arguing he should have done, looks way more preposterous.
""The idea that a routine private settlement, unconnected to any campaign activity, is a criminal offense because the settlement should have been paid with official campaign funds is the most preposterous, ludicrous, idiotic, indefensible, fraudulent “legal theory” conceivable.
"Under this “theory,” candidates must use federal campaign funds for private, personal or corporate matters—an exact inversion of federal law. Indeed, DOJ prosecutes those who use campaign funds for expressly non-campaign purposes. Of course, the “theory” is all bogus pretext.
"No serious human believes that Manhattan DA’s office believes any of this. They understand this is a purely partisan exercise in vengefully prosecuting a political enemy precisely as is done is repressive third world nations, despotic regimes and marxist authoritarian states."
i can understand rand paul... this is a witch hunt, and if anyone should go to jail, it's the district attorney who brought this case.
thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
i mostly use the atlantic and new york times and PBS. the times have biases in their editorial section, but they are mostly trustworthy. i also like newsweek, time magazine. wall street journal, washington post, the economist. there are a lot more, but these come to top of mind.
when i think of die hard trump supporters, i think of not just fox news, but a lot of random youtube videos and websites that no one's ever heard of. or random memes and hearsay that needs fact checked. i do recognize that there are educated trump supporters who know how to vouch for a source's credibility.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
jesus said 'forgive them father, they know not what they do'
but if you look around on the internet, a lot of people say that a person acting ignorantly can still commit a sin.
i always looked at sinning as 'intentionally doing what you know is wrong'. this involves intention and knowledge, something that resides in one's mind, as an opposite of ignorance.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
it's just a matter of spreading awareness and having the political will to do it
both the government and our citizens can be saved economically
healthcare is the only issue that could potentially bankrupt the country, and this thread tackles that issue too
affordable housing solution - bring back boarding houses with a drug search waiver
affordable healthcare solution - grow healthcare costs at or less than inflation and make insurance companies non-profit
affordable education solution - stop giving out loans and instead require limited percent of income plans
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
the solution, is boarding houses, that require a waiver of privacy rights when it comes to drug searches.
a person gets a room. they share kitchens and living areas and bathrooms. the government lends money to non-profit organizations to build and maintain these boarding houses. that takes out the profit motive and corruption. residents pay a third of their income for costs... if they dont have much income, or no income, they dont pay much. this means the only ones who are homeless... is drug addicts who refuse to submit, and dangerous criminals, and dangerous mentally ill people. maybe these people can be taken care of on a case by case basis, but these guys are their own category which i acknowledge my solutions dont solve.
instead of flat out paying people's rent like the government does now, and doing nothing about affordability, boarding houses bring back economical structures. we probably already spend enough money on housing, to instead lend out money that's going to be repaid to the government eventually anyway.
the highest ranked debater here pointed out that when you put a bunch of poor people together, it causes social ills and stuff like drug problems and destroys the whole cost savings paradigm. that killed my idea for a solution before... but now my solution to, is for residents to waive their rights to not be searched. drug searches can happen at will, and randomly, and arbitrarily.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
some people say truth is relative. well, relative is a relative word. but truth is not arbitrary.
maybe there are exceptions to rules, but the rules and the exceptions are clear. killing others for no reason is bad. maybe there are situations where killing others is justifiable, but that doesn't mean killing isn't clearly wrong, in general. whether killing is justifiable isn't subject to just some duede's whims, it's not arbitrary.
maybe i'm saying truth is objective, i dont know. i dont know what the basis for truth is, other than maybe a higher power or God. well, maybe an objective reality beyond God could exist, that is the basis for objective truth. i dont know if we mere humans can know what all the truths are, but that truth exists shouldn't be the issue.
just some ramblings i had that i thought id see what folks thought.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
i would think five to ten percent of their income would be sufficient, per year, for ten years. no loans, just payments in the future. the government can give schools a net present value of estimated future payments, and collect the payments on income taxes.
this would incentavize colleges to make their students economically viable grads, which is what the end goal is anyway. they would focus more on practical skills. they might decide that four years and excessive unneeded classes aren't necessary, making it more efficient again. (though the government can require some very basic courses, like generic psychology and generic sociology and generic science etc etc and basic math and reading and writing) this also requires that students dont just get a free ride, but that they chip in on their own education, which would appeal to conservatives. students with not much intelligence or potential would be saw for who they are, and they would be found to be maximized to their potential by the school. majors that are worthless wont get as much money, and that would cause the system to adapt... maybe only the cream of the crop students should be doing humanities, and their would be a punishment of less money to both the student and school for allowing low skill students to go into the humanities. maybe a philosophy major will end up at mcdonalds, and neither he nor the school will benefit much. maybe the school wont accept stupid kids in the humanities.
the well off grads would pay more, who are the most economically viable ones. and the less economically viable ones would pay less. there's a certain justice to that, if that happens to fit your political ideology.
this proposal is an example of the kind of concrete solutions that politicitians should be working on. the beurocrats in washington have lost the policy in politics.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm a solid christian in my beliefs. I believe in the afterlife and that God is love. I have concluded that the best way reconcile all this is to say God loves everyone but there r consequences to our actions.
I grew up catholic so that catholic guilt colors my psyche. But beyond that, even focusing on the words of Jesus instead of the rest of the new testament can be disheartening. He said we r judged by how we act, we can't know we r saved, some sins r unforgivable. What do those of us think who know we r wretched sinners? Modern protestantism gives a different spin on all these issues, but if we take the gospels as they r, it can be very upsetting. No wonder there's so much depression and sorrow in the world.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
every other country covers everyone at half the cost, with better wait times. so it can be done here too. the thing is, they started from scratch and built their healthcare systems from the ground up... not trying to redo a country like ours with a third of a billion people in it. what could happen if we tried to make it universal? the most obvious problem would be that the democrats dont do anything to get costs down first, or they cave when costs are contained with a medicare like pricing system. (which sets limits on how much can be spent) and speicial interests complain about it. the republicans could repeal any taxes that are used to pay for a new system. so it's definitely possible to bankrupt us based on health care... is what i'm getting at.
how do other countries spend half as much as we do? they mostly get it down to that level by regulating how much the government is willing to pay for each procedure, they regulate costs. they also minimize the role of insurance, which helps given insurance is a middle man that pays a third just in adminstrative costs instead of the two percent that medicare pays. (some hospitals have more staff to take care of billing than they do nurses, for instance)
if we're not doing more of these cost containing things, we're headed in the wrong direction.
if we dont do anything about costs, we could end up bankrupt switching to something universal. we only have ten percent of folks who are uninsured... which means it's not earth shattering if we didn't cover those few extra people. it would be earth shattering to borrow money to pay for it. that's why the emphasis shouldn't be on universal care, it should be on getting costs contained.
sometimes it is wise to be skeptical if a public option or universal plan could work... we're trying to redo an embedded system, and politicians are good at fucking things up. it's rational to only focus on getting costs contained...that's the biggest problem.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
that could be read as a collective right, or an individual right. depends on how it's read. so look to history...
all the talk during the early days was about the need for a militia, there's no talk about how everyone has a right to a gun. i challenge anyone to find such evidence. the only thing one can find in those days, is that some people thought it was smart for people to have guns, but this talk is never tied to the second amendment, and it's a different point to make than everyone has a right to a gun. the only way you can find a right to a gun in the early history, is to say it's implied that given most people were in the militia, then they all had a right to a gun including those who werent in the milita too, i guess?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
it sounds like the classified documents that he had, he shouldn't have had. i can't say that for sure, cause they won't say what exactly he had.
maybe, trump could be said to have by definition declassified the documents simply by taking them. after all, the constitution says that the president IS the executive branch, so he's the one calling the shots.
the problem, though, is that he probably still shouldn't have had the documents, even if he can get away on a technicality per crimes. so, if he's going to use a technicality to get away with a crime, i dont think anyone should be afraid to charge him with obstruction of justice.
after all, he lied and obstructed the FBI trying to get the documents back. he did that after he was president. i mean, maybe they didn't have a right to ask for documents that weren't ultimately classified? i dont know, maybe, but he shouldn't have had them, and the FBI should have been able to ask for them back.
what do ya'll think? if you support trump in all this, isn't it just based on technicalities? he ultimately did something he shouldn't have, regardless of what the laws are, and you should acknowledge that.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Texas is bussing them to NYC and DC. Maybe this will get the dems to finally acknowledge there's a crisis, and to find a way to stop it.
I think dems don't think this through, half thoughts. Instead of catch and release, send them back. Asylum seekers should stay in their home country or Mexico. A wall would help, but there's less radical methods too.
Libs want to think illegals don't hurt anything but that's not true. They need jobs which would be stealing from poor Americans. They don't speak English or have our culture so it would be expensive to teach them English and get them trained. Our cultures would clash which I assume is bad. They say immigrants commit as much crime as Americans, but I would assume if they r desperate, they r more likely to turn criminal. I mean assimilation is possible it'd just be expensive. Also again the job stealing... a bunch of unskilled poor immigrants needing jobs would throw off the Equilibrium our economy has settled into. Job stealing and major struggle. Plus we should follow through on what we say.... if we say not to come here and gave borders what's the point if we just let them come as they please?
Makes more sense to chip in financially to get them in a country that speaks their language and shares culture.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It looks like no one changes their mind much. I the think it's rare, but I also suspect folks just don't vocalize much when they r swayed.
I change my mind more than I do a good job expressing
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
turning 18 doesn't magically make a person a mature adult. we give them the rights of adults, with the consequences of adults, because they should know better. that doesn't mean they will know better.
if a kid isn't mature enough to own a gun, and many adults are no better than kids in their maturity, how does it follow that all adults are mature enough to own a gun?
my point, is the presence of a gun, will cause some people to die who otherwise wouldn't die. this common sense point is at the basis for half the nonsense that gun nuts talk about. "guns dont kill people, people kill people". in fact, guns do kill people. and, it should be common sense that a gun will cause some people to be more likely to kill people.
the science behind this is overwhelming, that the presence of a gun causes murder rate to increase, more here.
but i'm just curious how the gun nuts will wiggle around this kid v adult maturity point.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
it sounds like the site just wasn't managed properly. there has to be a sale or situation that would be acceptable to the previous owner, where the site could be maintained. letting it get shut down benefits no one.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering. we are co creators in that sense. it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering. as jesus said, the man wasn't born with health problems because of something him or his parents did, but to give glory to God when he's one day disease free.
also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that's just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.
of course, a person can just insist that if it's possible for suffering not to exist but does, then it isn't necessary. a person could rationally cling to that principle, but they have to admit that they might be wrong if everything i say is true, and they need to admit that the alternative view that i present is completely realistic. What if God and heaven exist, and the reality is how i present it? then the skeptic is just clinging to philosophy that has no basis in reality. the words and thoughts, the pointless ramblings, of mere men.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
here's a load of science that shows the consensus in science is against the gun nuts.
it's consensus science that where there's more guns, or more people have them, that there's more murders than places that dont have guns.
it's consensus that where there's more gun control, there's less murder.
it's basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it's obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won't stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it's too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won't be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they're almost never needed for self defense.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn't have happened if they didn't have guns.
if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
bruce/caitlyn jenner is a trans woman. he is biologically male but she identifies her gender as female. if caitlyn is attracted to females, i think it would be fair for him to call himself either homosexual or heterosexual. this is because by the standard of gender, he's a lesbian. but, by the standard of biological sex, he's a heterosexual. both are fair game for self declared labels.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
they already have a bunch of different types of repayment plans. one of them is even ten percent of your discretionary income per year for no more than ten years.
they also have rules for those who are disabled to get discharged.
how is that unfair? there needs to be personal responsibility too.
why should workers who have no degree be paying for their boss who has a degree? plus all those arguments that it's unfair to those who try to pay themselves.
i actually dont like part of the above ten percent scheme, cause it could encourage students to take too much out, knowing it will get discharged.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
here is my rant....
democrats will censor speech when it's dangerous or it's misinformation. republicans censor when it's simply a message that disagrees with them. examples are book bans from republicans, and social media censoring from democrats. the reason republicans are worse, is because they want to attack substance and dont have even a plasible (not that it's excused) excuse that the speech is dangerous or inaccurate. at least, republicans have historically not been all about new ideas. from the other side, the liberals' hippie ancestors are not amused, because those hippies promoted free speech, whereas modern liberals dont as much as they should. liberals also do things like ban trump from platforms.... it's understandable to block dangerous speech, but someone in trump's position should have least have a platform, so it'd be better to pick what things to block from him instead of a blanket ban. the reason liberals are doing the censoring moreso these days, is because they hold power politically these days in the culture... so it's an inversion of power, in the past they were the ones being censored.
if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. my focus isn't debating those that think free speech is bad... but the thing is, everyone wants to talk out their mouth that it's good, and then a sizeable number will find ways to excuse censorship when it comes from their party.
i'm just calling spades, spades, with this post. how could you disagree?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
i organized my thoughts from another thread, and thought i'd share it here. i'll probably take the debate to other debate websites too, to get a feel for a wide range of opinions. i have trouble logging in so i wont be able to respond as consistently as i'd like.
----------
dr. jeffrey long wrong a book, 'evidence of of the afterlife'. a smart and capable doctor writing a book like that should be sufficient to establish evidence, but i know some peeps are too stubborn to leave it at that.
let's look at some lines of evidence:
philosophically, it's just plain stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die. why would this even happen? drugs, dreams, and other hallucations dont cause people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories in any other aspect of life... why should we assume there's something special about dying that causes this?
out of body experiences are commonly verified as accurate, to the point of almost always being accurate. doctors and professionals are often some people verifying things that occurred when someone was dead, when what the dead person knew was impossible to know. if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. even the AWARE study where they tried to measure out of body phenomenon, had two examples where someone who was dead knew what happened out of their body. and there was some measurement of auditory ability when they were dead. now, yes this isn't the level of evidence that leaves no room for doubt, and this isn't exactly being able to be measured in a lab on demand.... but this is all evidence that is being measured and can be repeated. it's basic science.
dead family members. when people experience beings on the other side, the beings met are almost always dead and almost always family members. if this was just a random hallucination, there should be many more examples of living people and people other than family members. this consistency is a strong point.
there are plenty of examples of blind people seeing when they die, often for the first time ever. the examples who people who are coming to grips with a new sense, it takes time to process and that's exactly what we see.
here is more on the NDEs of blind people
some other lines of evidence:
-another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their 'life reviews' are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of false memories.
-i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead, they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives.
-also, people often see images in their life review, that they've long forgotten. it's not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it's showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff.
-it's also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either.
-it's also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life reviews and such... all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn't be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences.
more on consistency.
-almost every person who has these experiences after the exerperience then believes in the afterlife. if these were just hallucaionations, you'd expect this not to so consistent.
-it's also worth noting, that a majority of atheists even come back believing in God... it's almost never the case that theists end up becoming atheists. the atheists who dont convert, just had no special insight on the matter, the ones who gain knowledge of something end up becoming believers. (this is also a line of evidence for the existence of God)
-it's very rare to find a non christian religion NDEs by the way. the experiences are so rare, that i challenge anyone to find just a few of them. the only ones i've seen are too open to interpretation to draw too many conclusions from.
the skeptic arguments against NDEs being authentic are at best hunches, it lacks specificity in science. there's no known afterlife gene or something in our brain that we know of that would cause this. yes, we are all similar so maybe our survial gene is facilitating all this. but like i said, it's all just a big hunch. we have lots of science and scant evidence to support skeptics. there's simply not enough evidence to be a skeptic about whether there is even evidence to begin with. this is all evidence, so skeptics have a repubuttable presumption against them and they are bad and providing actual evidence to support their claims.
philosophically, if it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that's prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist. even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn't most probable... it's objectively possible based on that evidence and all the other lines i've provided. that's why it's objectively irrational to say there's not even evidence for an afterlife.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
i mean, it's good to subsidize alternative fuel, cause it speeds up the transition to those sources. but i hear things like how hydorgen engines are making lots of break throughs recently. what if hydrogen makes more sense technologically, but economically electric cars have the advantage due to excess subsidies? maybe the government should give blanket tax credits to alternative energy sources, and let the chips fall where they may.
note, this is a hybrid free market argument. i recognize that government intervention could be a good thing, but i still see how tinkering in the market could distort maximum economic/technological progress.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
the media is good at telling us we should care about ukraine getting invaded, but they aren't good at telling us why.
what does biden do? he says he'll consider adding ukraine to NATO, and he is moving troops to NATO countries. these are needlessly escalating tensions.
what's the reason for such strong language? his actions are so untethered i can't quite pin point a reasonable motive. maybe it's as simple as ukraine being soverign is in the USAs best interests, and biden is just trying to act tough and is over reacting. id say a reasonable approach is to take what GDP ukraine is, and if russia invades, do twice as much GDP damage to russian GDP. that's tough without over reacting. give putin a choice. it's really not our business to be sticking our noses into otherwise. even the ukrainian president thinks the US president and media are over reacting.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics