Total posts: 1,499
Posted in:
it's a fact that the civil war was primarily fought to protect slavery in the south. so it's a racist flag, though the folks who use it nowadays are often too ignorant to know better
Created:
Posted in:
i think he has racist ideas, but that overall he isn't racist.
when he said obama didn't have a birth certificiate, the only evidence he had to base that thought, was that obama was black. he wouldn't have said anything like that to a white person. that is arguably racist.
Created:
evidence for God and the supernatural exists
you could make the case that the supernatural exists beyond a preponderance of the evidence. yet, despite this, atheists are atheists and have faith in nothing.
i'm referring to the every day definition of the word atheists, those who believe God does not exist. atheists as simply a-theist, without God, another definition, is at least plausible. those types are more like agnostics anyway, which is also plausible.
most atheists are ignorant, but i dont see too many who change their views when presented with evidence, so it's mostly a problem with being irrational.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
incoherence, irrational, ignorant = your rants
Created:
Posted in:
i'd tell ya'll bout my dick... but that shit would be a long story
Created:
real gangsta ass niggas think deep
Created:
i hereby would like to report all the right wingers of DebateArt
Created:
Posted in:
before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. that way, you're a mile away... and you have their shoes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
us orbiting the sun is just how we measure time. it's arbitrary. we could measure time with twenty four hours a day and if that doesn't coincide with our sun exactly, it's still a viable way to measure. what doesn't depend on measurement, is the fact that something changes with every passing moment.
Created:
Posted in:
i asked google, and it said "Among physicists, there is no real doubt that time doesreally, truly exist. It's a measurable, observable phenomenon. Physicists are just divided a bit on what causes this existence, and what it means to say that itexists.Jun 22, 2019".
so that is what you're arguing against, too, if u argue wit me.
Created:
Posted in:
is it a human construct? some people say time doesn't exist or is an illusion. the idea being that we simply exist, and we have a way to measure from one moment to the next, but that doesn't mean there's something 'moving' when we are just 'existing'.
but the reason i'd say time exists, is because if you go at light speed or around black holes, you would age at a different rate. maybe time should be considered the fourth dimension, after all.
what do all ya'll think?
Created:
Posted in:
how are women different than terrorists? you can negotiate with terrorists
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i never said the fathers preferred standing armies. they preferred militias. but if states dont include people in their militia, and the government decides to have a standing army, the fathers wouldn't have forced them to have a milita instead. and it isn't implied that they would have wanted everyone armed an informal militia either. that's too big of an assumption. the lack of evidence from your position is what u should focus on and what speaks for itself.... if your position was true, there would be evidence for it. it's not true, so there's no evidence.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
that definition of militia was defined by statute, not constitution. meaning it can change. and, it doesn't include females or anyone outside the age groups. plus there were exceptions like mail men etc who weren't included in the militia.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the problem is you can't provide basic evidence or a coherent argument for why your position is true.... you're just joinin the rest of the gun nut crowd in playing gymnastics and reading into things that dont exist. i think we should be true to the way things were originally, not liberal rewriting of the constitution to serve an agenda. there's a reason why the traditional conservative position is mine, and why the first hundred years of law reviews at law schools, took my position.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
yes that's accurate.
this isn't really a matter of interpretation. i asked u for clear evidence, and you can't provide it. u should just admit it instead of playing your mental gymnastics that i assume u must be playing. if there was evidence that the second amendment protects a right to a gun for self defense, those websites or somewhere would have posted it. the evidence doesn't exist.
i think there may be some laws written about 'informal militias' being everyone, and that might give many more rights than they'd otherwise have, but not because the amendment protects non-militia rights, but because that's the only thing it does protect.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i would agree that the regular person had a common law right to a gun for self defense, and you could use the ninth amendmend to justify that constitutionally. i dont think they had that right based on the second amendment, and i dont like people using that amendment to argue for no restrictions or such. i trust our elected representatives over un-elected judicial bureaucrats.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
anyone who is in the militia has a right to a gun. they have a right whether they are at home or on duty. that's the way it was in the original days. the large majority of people are not in the militia.
also, it shouldn't be so hard to provide evidence that that amendment protects the right to a gun for self defense. the reason you can't find any, or it's hard to find... is because it doesn't exist. and, it would exist, if that's what they intended.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i notice no mention of the second amendment there. there was an english common law right to a gun for self defense, after all. with all the hoopla that gun nuts use to defend the second amendment, they cant find some simple quotes from fathers stating that the second admendment protects the right to a gun for self defense or hunting, or anything other than the militia.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
some spurious and out of context quotes
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
most of those quotes regard having a gun might be a good idea sometimes, or that militia rights are a good thing. ('bear arms' refers to militias) or they're taken out of context. i'm also sure that many of those quotes are spurious, given how often gun nuts use false information, but i wont go point by point on them. it's telling that you can't find any quote that uses the second amendment to protect self defense right with a gun.... simple idea, but you can't do it.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the irony being, you can't show one shred of evidence from the founding fathers that they intended the second amendment to protect self defense with a gun. you can show a possible interpretation of the amendment in that regard, but if it was true, they would have said something about it, like they did for the purpose of every other amendment.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the number varies a lot per rifle use. the article used the number 500 so i went with it. we know that we have a mass shooting per day, and that assault rifles are a primary use for that purpose. we know that only a couple hundred pepetrators are even killed per year, so the use of rifles to do so must be miniscule. we have enough data to say there's disproportionate murder with them.
i dont want to ban hand guns, because people need to be able to defend themselves and a gun is often the only way they effectively can. (i'm an odd ball and think the second amendment doesn't protect the right to self defense with a gun, but that the ninth amendment does, and that guns are necessary for public safety, even though they cause more harm than good)
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
why are you race baiting? you're just as bad as those liberal race baiters, just from another angle
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
there are around 500 people murdered with rifles per year. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/30/facebook-posts/fact-checking-number-people-killed-rifles-and-peop/
that reconciles with my stat that we have a mass shooting per day, and that assault rifles are a weopon of choice when that happens.
my assumption that they're used in self defense is rare, is based on how often perpetrators are even shot at all by any weopon, let alone an assault rifle. plus i dont see good examples of where they're needed, very much. plus it just doesn't seem like there would be that many instances where they're needed. i could be wrong.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
it's not a big deal that we ban assault rifles, considering how often they're used... but it should be done. my assumption is that it's much more rare for them to be needed for self defense than for murder. i can be persuaded to change my mind with evidence, if there is any. i know only a few hundred perpetrators are even shot per year, and that every time i see someone use those rifles for self defense, the situation didn't require one. but i also know we have at least one mass shooting per day in the usa on average, with those rifles as a primary choice, and that those rifles are used for murder a lot.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
correct, plus the rare need for them to be used in self defense
Created:
only with the gun debate, is it common for such idiotic arguments from gun nuts
Created:
The belief that more guns lead to fewer crimes is founded on the idea that guns are dangerous when bad guys have them, so we should get more guns into the hands of good guys. Yet Cook, the Duke economist, says this good guy/bad guy dichotomy is a false and dangerous one. Even upstanding American citizens are only human—they can “lose their temper, or exercise poor judgment, or misinterpret a situation, or have a few drinks,” he explains, and if they're carrying guns when they do, bad things can ensue. In 2013 in Ionia, Mich., a road rage incident led two drivers—both concealed carry permit holders—to get out of their cars, take out their guns and kill each other.
As I drove from Scottsboro to Atlanta to catch my flight home, I kept turning over what I had seen and learned. Although we do not yet know exactly how guns affect us, the notion that more guns lead to less crime is almost certainly incorrect. The research on guns is not uniform, and we could certainly use more of it. But when all but a few studies point in the same direction, we can feel confident that the arrow is aiming at the truth—which is, in this case, that guns do not inhibit crime and violence but instead make it worse.
The popular gun-advocacy bumper sticker says that “guns don't kill people, people kill people”—and it is, in fact, true. People, all of us, lead complicated lives, misinterpret situations, get angry, make mistakes. And when a mistake involves pulling a trigger, the damage can't be undone. Unlike my Glock-aided attack on the zombie at the gun range, life is not target practice.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Not necessarily. Saying that bad people are the problem doesn't mean that they don't have choices in tools they use to commit crimes. Bad people are choosing to use guns to do bad things.
incorrect. if this is a bad person problem and guns dont make the situation worse, there should be wildly out of control non-gun murder rates too. you are correct, that it's technically possible that people are just choosing to use guns, and by some coincidence, non-gun murders are normal here... but that's counterintuitive and would be a fluke of science.
think of it with common sense. think of a buffon who is culturally trained to carry around a gun. if he gets into a fight or argument, it's obvious by common sense alone that someone is more likely to die than if he doesn't have a gun.
And your Harvard source states that the only variable that was included was gun ownership rates. So, they don't even know if x causes y or y causes x. In simple terms, countries with more crime might increase gun ownership for self-defense purposes. They said that the only factor for controlling other variables was that all of the countries were developed.... That was it.
princplles of science dont just change, unless there's a reason for it. if more guns means more murder fifteen years ago, we have no reason to assume things are different. it's not just this study either, look at the opening post... police are more likely to die with gun around as are women, and so many other metrics. you and your loved ones are more likley do die if you have a gun, that sorta stuff. if there was just one study we might consider it could be flawed, the implications. but look at the totality of the science out there.
what i have on my side of the argument is the totality of the sicnece. i also have common sense. i defy you to argue from common sense that everyone carrying around guns wouldn't cause the murder rate to sky rocket.
Created:
it's very rare for someone to need an assault rifle for self defense. we're talking maybe hundred per year of examples, i'd think. but how often are those guns used in mass shootings and for murder? much more likely.
assault rifles are not just like other guns in scary lookin form. they are more efficient at shooting multiple people quicker. that's because of their spread and their ease of triggering.
yes knives kill more people than assault rifles, but when you consider how many murders are done by the rifles versus the knives, the rifles have a higher rate of murder.
gun are not just tools. people are more likely to kill if they have a gun. this is common sense and backed by science. (gun murders are wildly out of control in the usa versus other countries while non-gun murders are not- this isn't just a bad person problem. areas with more guns have more murder)\
more gun control science: https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com/
people dont kill people, bullets do. ('guns dont kill people, people do')
there's no evidence the framers were even trying to protect self defense and hunting, let alone that they were trying to protect mass killing machines
just thought i'd address some of the more common nonsensical arguments upfront.
Created:
Posted in:
it's sad to see an educated man on the bench parroting the idea that knives are more dangerous than rifles. yes, that's technically true, but when you consider how many knives exist versus rifles, rifles have a higher rate of danger to them, especially assault rifles.
Created:
Posted in:
i think ebuc has schizophrenia or is at least otherwise mentally ill. i assumed everyone knows this, but it might not be common knowledge. incoherence is a common trait with the diseases.
Created:
Posted in:
"human brains produce consciousness and consciousness is limited to our brain" is a factually incorrect statement
Created:
Posted in:
quanta act as particle when observed. they act as waves when not observed. doesn't this mean our consciousness does more than have interactions in our brain? this double slit experiment proves that our mind affects stuff outside of our mind. there's clearly something much deeper going on than "human consciousness is merely a function of our brain"
this has spiritual or religious implications, arguably.
Created:
Posted in:
i have an ass in order for all ya'll to kiss it... :-D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
there are no specific reasons for believing in unicorns or any of that. there are lots of reasons to believe in God and the afterlife. your argument is like that of the flying spaghetti monster... it makes a point, but it's a very superficial and weak point.
maybe if people died and experienced unicorns, i might change my mind. or, if they prayed to unicorns and then things that looked supernatural happened to them, then i might change my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
i have never seen or read or heard of any drug that consistently causes afterlife stories the same way NDEs do. some drugs cause some similiarities, sometimes... but that's it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
it's hard to find any experiences that include imagery like Allah and hindu gods. at least, i strongly doubt you can find very many. i found one that had black figures in it, and the person assumed they were indian gods..... but i considered that their interpretation. there's still not many non christian NDEs and there's many christian NDEs.
it's also worth noting, that the large majority of atheists dont just come back from the experience not believing in God... the large majority switch and end up believing in God and the afterlife. so they dont see what they expect, which is nothingness.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
also, switzerland has more gun control than we do. and, even if it didn't, it's still the exception to the rule. you can find an example or exception to fit any argument... but i cited a harvard literature review, that says the prescence of gun correlates to murder. that means that's the general rule.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
1
why aren't non-gun murders wildly out of control in the usa?
2
also, whatever your argument is.... do you agree that non-gun murders *should* be wildly out of control if this is just a bad person problem, and not a gun problem too?
Created:
i notice what i said would be true, is true.... lots of illogical posts, and nothing about why non-gun murders aren't wildly out of control.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
knives only kill so much compared to guns, because there are so many more knives out there than rifles. this is fourth grade science that you are struggling with
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
i never said a gun on its own kills people. but a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun. that's just common sense, and science... both of which u lack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
the first verses in the gospel of John say in the beginning the word was with God, and the word was God. that is describing the traditional trinity. there are also a few obscure verses who Jesus is referred to as 'God' in the letters of the new testament.
Created:
im like next to positive people who try to argue against the science here, are going to completely ignore why non-gun homicides aren't wildly out of control too. that's always what happens in this debate. they'll argue something illogical and ignore the opening most important question in this thread.
Created:
-You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that's not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a graph
it's possible that folks just use guns instead of other weopons to kill, such that non-gun murders are within the global normal range. but that's not the most strightforlward interpretation. it goes against logic. non-gun murders should be wildly out of control, too, even if it's not to the same extent as gun murders.
we have half the world's guns and our murder rate is way out of control, particularly gun murders. this is pretty obvious what is happening.
but it's not just gun v non gun murders, there's a ton of other persruavsive evidence that points to guns causing more murder than would otheriwise occur without so many guns.
GUN CONTROL SCIENCE
-where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger.
-where there are more guns, there is more murder, across geographic regions from localities and larger. this is also a lot more informing because it a literature review of lots of studies. what's more, people are shown not to kill with other weopons instead of guns, as is often argued, because if they did there would be no correlation here.
-women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends
-you are more likely to be murdered if you have a gun, as well as those close to you
-States with more gun control have fewer mass shootings
-only around two hundred and fifty killings are done in the name of self defense per year. people like to pretend defense is such a huge thing, but the odds of being murdered is is closer to forty times higher. the odds of being shot and not necessarily killed are upwards of four hundred times higher.
-we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population
-Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas.
-we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population
-Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas.
-Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher.
-High school kids in the USA are eighty two times more likely to be shot than the same kids in other developed countries.
-states with more gun control have fewer youth who die from guns
https://abc30.com/5396718/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d2d172f8e73cc000164c229&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2T40EdBsGdPZk_VCL8Bi5RDJsNtpF2Ud9NIYiB74njS72zrcqudw1idWY
https://abc30.com/5396718/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d2d172f8e73cc000164c229&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2T40EdBsGdPZk_VCL8Bi5RDJsNtpF2Ud9NIYiB74njS72zrcqudw1idWY
-it is claimed that most murders are gang related, but this looks to be factually incorrect in the link. even if higher numbers floating around on the internet are true, our murder problem still there if you take out the gang murders from consideration. the numbers here can be arrived at with basic math.
-this really isn't just a mental health problem. we don't have more people with mental health problems than other countries.... just more people with guns. the study controls for mental health factors v other factors.
-we dont have more crime than the rest of the world, just a lot more people getting shot and killed. you aren't more likely to be mugged here, for instance, but you are more likely to be mugged and shot in the process. again a gun problem. showing it's not just deviants being deviants as some suggest but an emphasis on the gun problem.
-You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that's not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a picture.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/71n1u2/gunnongun_homicide_rates_in_oecd_countries_for/
-people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone. /// you can do the math yourself. there are 2.5 million assault rifles in circulation. 374 rifle deaths per year. there are 11000 gun homicides. there's a gun for every person in the usa, 340 million. what's the math say? 374 divided by 11000 is 3.4 percent of deaths are from rifles. 2.5 milliion divided by 340 milliion is less than a percent. so what does this mean? despite rifles being less than a percent of guns, they cause 3.4 percent of deaths. that is, a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle. most guns that are used in murder are hand guns, but assault rifles are more likely to be chosen over a hand gun when faced with that choice. just like, as an analogy, people are more likely to speed in a sports car, but most cars that speed are not sports cars.
-people like to throw around number of defensive gun use. the idea is that not all defensive gun uses result in a killing. the most common number in literature is tens of thousands, though the number vary wildly. the only thing is, even if you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than being murdered, you are still more likely to be murdered than someone who doesn't have a gun. also, a lot of those thousands of defensive uses are not all that critical.... downplaying their significance. and, a lot of those 'defensive' uses were actually situations that were people instigating and escalating a situation that wouldn't otherwise exist, as the link below illustrates. even if we used the higher numbers, is it all that convincing that there are tens of thousands more near murders in a nation with already a globally disproportionate number of murders? it holds true, that we could give lots more people guns, and that may increase defensive use... but it would come at the cost of more murder, too.
-for more on giving an overview of the gun issues, see the following
-in the usa, the number of murders has overall gone down in recent decades. the thing is, while the number of guns went up, the number of people owning them went down. also, this is just one measure: all the other measure include all the countries and localities where gun levels are proportionate to murder rates.
-for more information on gun policy in the usa and other countries: www.gunpolicy.org
-for more information on gun policy in the usa and other countries: www.gunpolicy.org
-australia. they enacted major gun reform around twenty years ago after a mass shooting. they bought back a bunch of guns and enacted other gun control. their mass shootings stopped. this almost surely is not an anomloy. their homicides dropped by up to fifty percent. the idea is a lower murder rate came with a lower percent of people owning guns (note that this is different than the specific gun ownership rate because if less people own more guns that could cause the percent owning to go down but the overall rate could be the same). misinformation attempts like to point that overall murder went up slightly after reform, but the rate did not and went down. also, the number of guns have gone up closer to previous level but the gun ownership rate is still lower. it is true that global murder went down, and some of that correlates with australi's rate... but global reductions arent as drastic s australia's.
-japan. they literally have barely any murders, and barely any guns. they have a rigorous process for allowing guns
Created:
Posted in:
if the minimum wage kept up with productivity, people would make over twenty bucks an hour. that means, on average businesses can afford to pay more. i dont think 15 cause there's a cost benefit that has to occcur, and i'd say that's too high. if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since the 1970's the minimum would be 12 bucks an hour. so that's what i think it should be. i assume most businesses can afford to pay more, even if some can't. it's not a viable business model to not pay enough. there's so many people that it's basically just exploiting them to pay them nothing.
Created: