Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

The Debate Thread

Archive: 105 posts

That's right guys, the debate thread! This is for mature members only, and any "stupid-trying-to-be-funny-for-the-lulz" remarks will NOT be tolerated.

This thread is purely for debating, and sharing our beliefs and views, NOT bashing and abusing others for THEIR views >_>

We want every member to get as much out from this thread as possible, whilst still having fun

This is how it goes, I will introduce a topic, or question, and I'll let you guys debate about it, then when I see that the topic has been debated dry, I'll introduce another one, and so on and so forth

FIRST TOPIC/QUESTION:

Is it right for a person to kill another human being in a war? Why or why not? (Or, if you're one of the general type of people...Is there ever a just cause for war? Why or why not?)

Have fun, and NO FLAMING >_>		2008-10-30 07:49:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

Just as a warning: If this thread gets out of hand at all, I'll lock without a second thought. If you want to participate, be mature about it.2008-10-30 08:35:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

well it really depends on what the other country or other person has done say they murdered some one close to you it's the same as can i release my rage on them my anger now most people would say to kill is not human but think about it with out death the world would be over populated and the earth's resources would get used at a much higher rate if there wasn't wars and just peace the world could not survive

THERE has to be a balance of good and bad right and wrong YING AND YANG!!!

Now killing is wrong and should not be done but we need it! now im not saying lets start killing people not at all i hate killing but there is a balance of life and death


EDIT: now let us think of war on a lower scale now say if you have your copy of lbp ok now someone steals that right from your hands now the most common person would chase them down and get it back right so think of that but on the same scale as war now one country steals your oil we can just say so the country goes back to get it and then there you have yourself a war.		2008-10-30 08:39:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

You make a very good point Hero. Survival of the fittest, taken literally, is indeed essential for a balanced life. 2008-10-30 08:44:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

thanks, stix what about your thoughts on this topic???2008-10-30 08:48:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

Well, I believe that if the war is indeed just, then realistically there should be a good side and a bad side. Whomever committed the deed that sparked a war would be classified as the bad side. But, if that deed was done due to a just reason in it's own right, then it's safe to say that whomever committed it has justified their actions.

Say for example, Germany invaded and captured Africa in order to expand their empire and excess their power. This would be an unjust action. Then The Africans, due to the invasion, start a war against the Germans in order to get back what they had lost. That would be just.

The latter would then be classified as a just war, and the Africans have the right to kill others for their own country, to a certain extent. And that boundary is what justifies their actions.

Now, this is me not including religion at all...If I was to include religion, there would be a lot more words in this post 		2008-10-30 08:58:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

=) i so agree with you mate and as my grand granddad being a jew in germany back in the times really gets me fired up even over the word nazi


15+ please

Now as they say no one deserves to die i can't agree with this if i had the chance to just pop a bullet in hitlers head i would not pass that chance for 10000 copys of lbp		2008-10-30 09:02:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I agree with you man! I would have done the same thing. I'm not Jewish, but what he did to the Jews was unjustifiable. He had no right to do what he did, and I believe that he was indeed punished for what he had done, either physically or mentally, socially or cognitively. Hitler was a monster, and we now have many facts to prove it >_>2008-10-30 09:09:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

15+ again please
i think he was ashamed he was ashamed he was *** so he killed *** people to cover this up now being christen i don't like homo sexuality but i don't care i only don't like it because i believe men and women are as 1 i have a friend who is *** and i am fine with that i'm just saying i could never do anything like that....although for hitler i still don't see what he had against jews as the GREAT solider that gave him his iron cross he was Jewish (god bless his soul) now as hitler being Jewish and being ashamed then i don't truly know
15+ again! i don't want to get in trouble for posting this stuff so that's why the warning is there!
although as for war one man can take down a nation one man can kill the earth one man can control all and all it takes is one mans will power determination and GREED

in today's society i say this could never happen

although you see school shootings and how are they caused by some kid being called names i mean COME ON!!! omg your a ............ o now im going to kill you people have to learn to take it on the shoulder have a fist fight

now alot of people aruge video games can cause aggravation to this problem now although i can agree with this but i say kids who are manipulated to easily and kids with problems such as (that anger one forgot the name) should not be allowed to play these and it's up to the parents		2008-10-30 09:22:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

Personally I believe killing in War is more justified than doing it for a personal level, unfortunately you cannot generally separate the two. I think whats different since WW2 is that people now feel they have to take personal responsibility for thier actions rather than 'just following orders'

War can be justified as well, such as WW2 but we need to be vigilant that we are not mislead into war, such as Iraq. The justification was flimsy to say the least, and the post war 'stability' of Iraq was a farce. Theres a good film called 'no end in sight' which interviews the American stability force right after the invasion which is an eye opener.

However killing outside of war, and indeed the Geneva concention is murder. no two ways about it.

(Awaits backlash from Americans)		2008-10-30 10:00:00

Author:
Piratepete
Posts: 110

You can't justify a war i think. Sending troops of men to kill one-other is unacceptable in any circumstances. I see protection as being okay... so sending a troop to stop your people getting killed is fine. But whoever 'started it' can never have a just cause.

Off topic to UKs-Finest:
Have you seen the film Conspiracy? It's very sad, but it's about the meeting where the nazi's gave the go-ahead to kill all the jews. The way they talk about killing them like it's nothing is just disgusting. The film is very well done though.		2008-10-30 10:36:00

Author:
ryryryan
Posts: 3767

i think that if one country invades another country it is unjust. if a country defends itself from the invaders it's just. it's okay to kill in a just war once it's not civilians and only the other army who themselves choose to fight and knew the risks and that it was wrong.2008-10-30 10:59:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

FIRST TOPIC/QUESTION:

Is it right for a person to kill another human being in a war? Why or why not? (Or, if you're one of the general type of people...Is there ever a just cause for war? Why or why not?)


Is it wrong to kill a person to save one's country? Or one's religion? Or race?

Let's look at it in a smaller sense.
If a man enters your house without permission, with the intention of robbing you, you have every right to kill that man.
If another country enters your country without permission, with undesirable intentions, you have every right to fight back.

Is there a just cause for war?
Yes. Yes there is.
If you truly know that you have the ability and power to save another country, or religion, or race, and you know that it really isn't a suicide mission, then you have every right, if it isn't a must, to enter that country and fix whatever is wrong.
But that only applies if your intentions are pure, which they seldom are.		2008-10-30 13:21:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

Is it wrong to kill a person to save one's country? Or one's religion? Or race?

Let's look at it in a smaller sense.
If a man enters your house without permission, with the intention of robbing you, you have every right to kill that man.
If another country enters your country without permission, with undesirable intentions, you have every right to fight back.

Is there a just cause for war?
Yes. Yes there is.
If you truly know that you have the ability and power to save another country, or religion, or race, and you know that it really isn't a suicide mission, then you have every right, if it isn't a must, to enter that country and fix whatever is wrong.
But that only applies if your intentions are pure, which they seldom are.

That's a very realist way of looking at things and I totally agree. I find it completely ridiculous when so many philosophical debates occur surrounding real-world events and scenarios. Philosophy - in my opinion - simply doesn't figure into matters of life and death. In the real world, who's going to argue if a war is just or unjust? Most likely it's going to be the people who aren't doing the fighting. Out there, it's very simple: kill or be killed.		2008-10-30 13:47:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

i think both way yes and no

going to war must have a jusified reason, like taking back land for example, also if the leader are corrupted and wants his/her race to be doanated.

i dont believe going to war because of religion, unless a religion is trying to take over your culture and way of life that the only time fight over religion		2008-10-30 17:45:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

War, by its definition, is one party attempting to destroy another, in some form or fashion at least. War does not have to be officially announced to occur, it occurs simply in fact.

With that said, war is caused when one party attempts to place another underneath themselves, and subject them as an animal. In reality, by acting as animals, they put themselves at this level. There is very clearly a natural law in the universe, which all men are held accountable to. Men who break this natural law subject themselves to the executing of justice, which is performed by other men. Thus, men are justified in using whatever force necessary to exact justice on the breakers of the natural law.

A man who attempts to exploit another, either by life or property, performs against the rights of that individual, plainly given in natural law. Thus, the victims are well justified to defend themselves in order to protect their rights. Anyone who would take some part of another's property for their own would, given the opportunity, take all of it, and their life on top of it.

There are no true justified cases for beginning a war. War begins by one party with desires attacking another party to extract what they want, violating the natural law. It is, however, justified for these parties to defend themselves with as much force as necessary to uphold justice, and it is justified for other parties to respond with force to these attackers for the same reason.

John Locke for ya.		2008-10-30 17:47:00

Author:
Mark D. Stroyer
Posts: 632

Engaging in thread hijacking....
http://www.stereohyped.com/you-can-vote-however-you-like-20081028/

What say you? Even outside the US I'd like to hear the opinions. I haven't decided yet. Science and Technology and Education stances decide my vote.		2008-10-30 19:24:00

Author:
LordDax
Posts: 79

Engaging in thread hijacking....
http://www.stereohyped.com/you-can-vote-however-you-like-20081028/

that was a good song =) i liked that alot

@ryan i would watch that movie but it would just get me even more ANNOYED with Nazis then it would get to the point if i sore one i would just launch him on the ground

im guessing you guys would of seen that kkk/Nazi guy who tried assassinating barack obama God if i sore him on the street with his Nazi patch i would of killed that piece of poo		2008-10-30 21:20:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

Defending a country that is being attacked? Yes, killing is acceptable, but NEVER of innocents.

Attacking another group (country/state/ect) or religion/cult due to differences? No.

Wars will happen. Humans are animals after all, it is built in our genome to survive at all costs, even if that means killing others. The best solution is to educate our children about war and be honest why it happens, people are corrupt.

I have posted this video before, but:

zJM4EBuL82o

Another amazing video by one of my heroes, Carl Sagan:

p86BPM1GV8M

Can't we all get along? "In the end, it doesn't even matter.."

And yes, we are apes, not monkeys. I know. 		2008-10-30 21:46:00

Author:
Unknown User

In all honesty... I'm a communist. I believe that we should all just get along and work together, that's what communism truly is. I agree that we don't have a way to properly execute communism yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on finding one. It's unfortunate that we are taught that communism is a bad thing from a very young age here in the US, otherwise, things might be different.2008-10-31 00:28:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

In all honesty... I'm a communist. I believe that we should all just get along and work together, that's what communism truly is. I agree that we don't have a way to properly execute communism yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on finding one. It's unfortunate that we are taught that communism is a bad thing from a very young age here in the US, otherwise, things might be different.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/flyingtoastr/mudkip.jpg		2008-10-31 00:39:00

Author:
Unknown User

Code:

Ah, a communist? Or do you mean socialist?

From what I understand, one of the basic foundations of Communism is to kill all the rich from the old society- that's just the way it is. Lenin was a good, smart man trying to fix Communism to fit under russian conditions, but still had no problem lining up dozens of nobles and gunning them all down. So,um, yeah, by Communist, do you mean scoiallist, or do you want to do that, or do you want to have that dictator of the proletairiete rule and somehow give up absolute power to the poor?

Not saying that socialism is wrong or whatnot, I think a mixture of socialism and capatalism is good, but communism isn't good in that light. Though it is good in theory.

Um, anyway, back on topic:

On an emotionally based perspective, war is wrong because it's mass killing, only killing endorsed by the goverment. I won't get too into my thoughts on that here though.

On a logically based perspective, war makes sense in a war, as long as it doesn't get too out of hand- with the ever expanding population, there needs to logically be a way to supress it- logically, we should get rid of those that aren't capable of much, and save only the best and brightest for life.

But that's logic- I wouldn't condone it myself. see, a lot of things we do, when you think logically, don't make sense- Why do we take care of pets who do nothing but eat? Why do we pay massive amounts of money for the mentally handicapped?

Because we care too much and let our hearts interfere with logic. I am by no means saying that's a bad thing- I love dogs (almost too much, in fact :eek and don't want to kill anyone for the conditions they were born with- but when you think logically for the greater good of humanity, it doesn't make sense.

>_> Yeah, off the current topic a little, but hope that made sense.		2008-10-31 02:21:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

I am a communist, not a socialist. I believe that it is the highest form of government. I've thought long and hard about it. Communism, in it's purest form, is people working together for their own good without law or regulation. I do realize that it will not work for large scale government, but if you get a small, good, group of people together, it works very well. There are communist communities out there.

And rock, if you want to understand what communism really is, read the Communist Manifesto.		2008-10-31 03:26:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

I am a communist, not a socialist. I believe that it is the highest form of government. I've thought long and hard about it. Communism, in it's purest form, is people working together for their own good without law or regulation. I do realize that it will not work for large scale government, but if you get a small, good, group of people together, it works very well. There are communist communities out there.

And rock, if you want to understand what communism really is, read the Communist Manifesto.

communist only work in poor countrys, and some how the poor people become poorer while the rich get richer, it a good idea that never going to work when your leaders are corrupted. the world is full of greedy people so communism never going to work		2008-10-31 12:29:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

communist only work in poor countrys, and some how the poor people become poorer while the rich get richer, it a good idea that never going to work when your leaders are corrupted. the world is full of greedy people so communism never going to work

Communism works for all countries no matter their financial state.
That's the beauty of the theory.

Also, democracy won't ever work either thanks to corruption.		2008-10-31 17:02:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

Communism works for all countries no matter their financial state.
That's the beauty of the theory.

Also, democracy won't ever work either thanks to corruption.

You readily assert that communism works for all countries, but history cites several instances in which it has failed. I do agree it's great on paper, but I don't see how it's any less flawed than democracy - as you say - when put into action.

I wouldn't say democracy won't ever work, but it has it's problems just like communism. The issue with communism is that it really depends on complete participation by all that choose to take part. Greed's the real issue here; someone takes a little too much for themselves and the system falls apart.

The problem with most democratic societies is the that the people make all of the choices, but - in several cases - there choices are very limited. In all truth, there's really no difference between John McCain and Barrack Obama. Just to be very specific, America's two-party system is a very real problem. Sure, you can run within the Independent, Green, or whatever, but you really don't stand a chance against the Democratic or Republican parties. That's the real flaw in several democratic societies.

I do agree that people should read the Communist Manifesto, truly a remarkably insightful document.		2008-10-31 17:40:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

I wouldn't say democracy won't ever work, but it has it's problems just like communism. The issue with communism is that it really depends on complete participation by all that choose to take part. Greed's the real issue here; someone takes a little too much for themselves and the system falls apart.

The problem with most democratic societies is the that the people make all of the choices, but - in several cases - there choices are very limited. In all truth, there's really no difference between John McCain and Barrack Obama. Just to be very specific, America's two-party system is a very real problem. Sure, you can run within the Independent, Green, or whatever, but you really don't stand a chance against the Democratic or Republican parties. That's the real flaw in several democratic societies.

I meant that as long as you have corruption, you can't have democracy.

In fact, you can't have a perfect system of government while corruption is around. >_>		2008-10-31 17:54:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

I meant that as long as you have corruption, you can't have democracy.

In fact, you can't have a perfect system of government while corruption is around. >_>

Absolutely correct. Couldn't agree more.		2008-10-31 18:12:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

I am a communist, not a socialist. I believe that it is the highest form of government. I've thought long and hard about it. Communism, in it's purest form, is people working together for their own good without law or regulation. I do realize that it will not work for large scale government, but if you get a small, good, group of people together, it works very well. There are communist communities out there.

And rock, if you want to understand what communism really is, read the Communist Manifesto.

Code; There is a reason that communism CANNOT work in any way, shape, or form for any length of time.. Let's just assume you have a small group (say less than 12 people (i'm just picking a number). That's your base number... Every person has to, in "true" communism, perform 1/12'th of all activities for the benefit of a group.

What happens when 1 person is disabled... or some such? now you're "forcing" everyone to perform "extra" work.. and that in effect destroys the entire "pure" communism ideal, because now you've got 11 guys doing more than 1/12th of the work and one doing 0... so it's no longer a pure communistic group.

Not to mention, what happens if a couple members of your group cannot provide equally to the group from the get-go? (Not as smart, not as strong, etc.).. Officially, per communistic ideals, they cannot be part of the group to start with.. so you _have_ to throw them out of the group. Now you're either going to have to "Force" someone to take his place in the group, or you have to have everyone else perform more work than they did previously.

(and i'll stay out of the economic side of it, because I can guarantee you pure communism and economics WILL not work together.. it cannot be done.)		2008-10-31 18:47:00

Author:
DaSaintFan
Posts: 136

Code; There is a reason that communism CANNOT work in any way, shape, or form for any length of time.. Let's just assume you have a small group (say less than 12 people (i'm just picking a number). That's your base number... Every person has to, in "true" communism, perform 1/12'th of all activities for the benefit of a group.

What happens when 1 person is disabled... or some such? now you're "forcing" everyone to perform "extra" work.. and that in effect destroys the entire "pure" communism ideal, because now you've got 11 guys doing more than 1/12th of the work and one doing 0... so it's no longer a pure communistic group.

Not to mention, what happens if a couple members of your group cannot provide equally to the group from the get-go? (Not as smart, not as strong, etc.).. Officially, per communistic ideals, they cannot be part of the group to start with.. so you _have_ to throw them out of the group. Now you're either going to have to "Force" someone to take his place in the group, or you have to have everyone else perform more work than they did previously.

(and i'll stay out of the economic side of it, because I can guarantee you pure communism and economics WILL not work together.. it cannot be done.)
Every heard of a commune? They are basically small pockets of communist people that have banded together, and quite a few of them have managed to stay together throughout the years.

And I realize that the disabled will not be able to work in pure communism, that's why I said society is not ready for it on a large scale. One day, I believe, we will no longer have handicapped people, or at least they won't have the same limitations as the handicapped of today, due to advances in technology. Even if that doesn't happen, the whole idea of communism is people helping out each other, so the community would care for him/her.

As for the weaknesses, not everyone will have the same job/occupation. The higher intellect might be the doctors, or psychiatrists, while the lower intelligence will do the physical work. In communism, everyone helps each other.

Economics isn't supposed to work with communism. Communism isn't meant for this competing world of today, it is meant for the brighter tomorrow, a day in which we can all look forward to living together peacefully. 		2008-10-31 21:17:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

(IMO) It sounds more like you're in support of socialsm more than communism, Code.

Just remember the big difference is that in communism everything that is made, delivered, handed-out, must be mandated by the govt. You can't make/use more than your allotted allowment.

Socialism, you can make use/make/etc. whatever you see fit, but the use of all items is delivered on a "What's best for the community as a whole".

I know it's kind of a simplistic definition, but it just seems, you fall in the socialistic beliefs, not the communistic beliefs.		2008-10-31 21:44:00

Author:
DaSaintFan
Posts: 136

Not that socialism is wrong- in a perfect, logical society, we WOULD be socialist.

That way, everyone gets their equal share, everyone is provided for, ect.

But, in our society of thinking, we want to STRIVE for something, we want to have a goal so that everything we do isn't just given to the goverment for the greater good of society. We want what is best for US- because, in essence, Capitalism is an economy based on Greed. Don't try to deny that.

But yeah, um... yeah >_<		2008-10-31 21:54:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

[QUOTE=ScytheOfGrim;66331]Let's look at it in a smaller sense.
If a man enters your house without permission, with the intention of robbing you, you have every right to kill that man.
QUOTE]

I know that this discussion has turned another way but I saw this and I was kind of suprised. Do you believe that you have the right to kill a man when he is robbing you? Because I definatally don't. I do think you are allowed to beat him up a bit but I think you should hand him over to the police and shouldn't take the right in your own hands. I think killing a man because he robbed you is way too drastic!		2008-10-31 21:59:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

[QUOTE=ScytheOfGrim;66331]Let's look at it in a smaller sense.
If a man enters your house without permission, with the intention of robbing you, you have every right to kill that man.
QUOTE]

I know that this discussion has turned another way but I saw this and I was kind of suprised. Do you believe that you have the right to kill a man when he is robbing you? Because I definatally don't. I do think you are allowed to beat him up a bit but I think you should hand him over to the police and shouldn't take the right in your own hands. I think killing a man because he robbed you is way too drastic!

if the man was armed with a gun or other lethal weapon or was very dangerous you'd have the right to kill him to protect yourself. if his threatening you and your only way to stop him is to kill him i think you have the right but otherwise no.		2008-11-01 01:03:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

Let's look at it in a smaller sense.
If a man enters your house without permission, with the intention of robbing you, you have every right to kill that man.


I know that this discussion has turned another way but I saw this and I was kind of suprised. Do you believe that you have the right to kill a man when he is robbing you? Because I definatally don't. I do think you are allowed to beat him up a bit but I think you should hand him over to the police and shouldn't take the right in your own hands. I think killing a man because he robbed you is way too drastic!

I really want to hope that it was some kind of weird joke but I don't think it is. You honestly think it's okay to kill a person on your property? What is wrong with you?

EDIT:



if the man was armed with a gun or other lethal weapon or was very dangerous you'd have the right to kill him to protect yourself. if his threatening you and your only way to stop him is to kill him i think you have the right but otherwise no.

When you word it like that, it's a different story. But the way he said it was as if he believes you can "have the right" to take someone's life just for being there on your property.

However in that situation I know I wouldn't kill the person no matter the circumstance.		2008-11-01 05:48:00

Author:
UmJammerSully
Posts: 1097

[QUOTE=MatthijsNL;67236]

if the man was armed with a gun or other lethal weapon or was very dangerous you'd have the right to kill him to protect yourself. if his threatening you and your only way to stop him is to kill him i think you have the right but otherwise no.

I love confusion.

This is what I meant.

And here's a question for all of you:
How many people nowadays rob someone without a weapon?

So my generalized statement still stands strong.		2008-11-01 06:46:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

War is war people die.
it is stupid but it happens. There is never a cause for guns and killing. There are other ways to resolving hates and unliking other countries		2008-11-01 06:52:00

Author:
Snrm
Posts: 6419

War is war people die.
it is stupid but it happens. There is never a cause for guns and killing. There are other ways to resolving hates and unliking other countries
For some odd reason, I've never really cared about war. I find myself angry when I heard about injustice, yet when I hear about war, nothing, I just draw a blank card. When I think of war, I only think of the cause and effect, and whether it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant, and even if it was, I don't feel any emotion when I hear about a soldiers dying. All I can think about is the wrongs that led up to the war, I get angry, literally, over them. I got mad when I read about how the Civil War started, yet I felt nothing when my teacher told us about the slaughtering that took place at Gettysburg.

I know, I'm heartless, and it's people like me who start wars. I don't know how to defend myself here, I can't. :/		2008-11-01 07:46:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

War is war people die.
it is stupid but it happens. There is never a cause for guns and killing. There are other ways to resolving hates and unliking other countries

i disagree. if 1 country invades another and starts killing the people of the country. the invaded country has the right to defend itself by going to war with the invading country.		2008-11-01 12:04:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

i disagree. if 1 country invades another and starts killing the people of the country. the invaded country has the right to defend itself by going to war with the invading country.

I would have to say I agree, I mean the thing is once the people who are a threat have been eliminated * lets say for example saddam* I seriously don't see the reason for a country to stay there. And once people of the country are affected and killed then the right to freedom as it is called can be used and attack the people who have invaded them.		2008-11-01 12:23:00

Author:
Kyashu
Posts: 447

[QUOTE=vhalt101;67355]


And here's a question for all of you:
How many people nowadays rob someone without a weapon?



I don't know wheere you live but in Holland (where I live) weapons are illegal and hard to obtain. So I think most of the standard burglars don't carry a weapon. I honestly think that many of them don't even have a knife. I know this is probably different in the USA because in some states you can just buy a weapon the same way you buy a carrot but here in Holland, almost nobody carries or ownes a weapon.		2008-11-01 13:27:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

K! That was a great start guys! =D

I believe three pages is more than enough time debating on one subject

(I know, debating usually has a winner, or even an outcome....but for the sake of it being a forum thread, there will be none of that )

So, next topic: Religion. Do you believe in a higher being, such as God? Do you believe in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang? Or do you believe in both? Pretty much, discuss your religious views, learn from each other, refute each other respectfully, don't bash each other no matter what, and most importantly...Have fun 		2008-11-01 13:38:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

I do not believe in a god. I was raised Catholic but not in a very strict way. I do not believe in a god because if there would be a god I think he would make it clear that he exists. Make sure that everyone would follow him and make peace in all of the world. I do believe in the evolution theory but I don't know about the big bang. the theory of the big bang just doesn't seam logical but who am I to decide.2008-11-01 13:46:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

Hmm, I see. I know exactly where you come from, because quite frankly, I know of many people who decided to go against what they had been taught, due to the way they were taught, really. If someone forces you to believe something, and doesn't let you even think about the possibilities of another logic or belief, then you're obviously going to push back, and force out what had been literally forced in.

Although, I do indeed disagree. I do so, because I am a pretty devout Catholic, and I do in fact believe in God. Evolution? Yes and no. I believe that evolution occurs in animals and creatures, but not in humans. I believe that non-spiritual things do indeed evolve, but spiritual beings, such as humans, who have a soul, do not.

If God revealed Himself entirely, what purpose is there of free will? God has shown Himself just enough for us to stop and think about His existence, and if we wish to acknowledge it or not. He revealed Himself enough for us to choose.		2008-11-01 13:54:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

I personally don't really believe in a god because, if one is logical, he couldn't exist.

I was always wondering why, if there IS a god, why did he only choose the people of ONE country to tell them he existed (Israel), but people in OTHER countries couldn't even hear of him because he wouldn't tell them. It's like he WANTED them to go to hell. 0_0

And another thing, although this is playing off the depiction of hell brought by Dante and that story depicting Lucifer written in the 1500s, but if the Devil is evil- why is he working with god to punish the evil? Why is the supreme embodiment of evil happy to work UNDER the supreme force of good as his sort of torturer and, more importantly, why would god allow him to? o_0		2008-11-01 13:56:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

i'm not really sure if I believe in God. i don't see how the universe could be created without some God creating it. but then how did god get there? i think the big bang theory is a bit stupid because it's nothing exploded into something to create everything. that dose not make sense to me anyway. i think it's more likely that God exist because science trys to explain things logically but it can't. i think science and religion both ask you to belief strange, illogical things but science is ment to be logical and religion dosen't have to be logical. so i think religion is more likely to be right but i don't know 2008-11-01 14:06:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

Firstly, belief isn't always about what you see or know. It's about what you, as the word is derived, believe. Faith is indeed blind, to those that don't understand it.

Secondly, God chose Israel first in order to set off the ripple effect, for lack of better wording. He started somewhere, and gradually moved on from there, if you may. It's not really easy explaining why God did something, for after all, us humans cannot even comprehend the slightest of God's power.

God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. It is stated many times, in the bible and out, that God loves everyone. The saints, the sinners, the in-between. Everyone. So saying that God WANTS a person to go to hell, would be nothing short of a blasphemy, since it's pretty much going against God's words.

Anyway, moving on...

The Devil, Lucifer was an angel at first. He had the free will to either be with God, or to be against Him. He chose the latter due to his greed for power. Lucifer was the most powerful angel, in fact, he was the second most powerful creature to God Himself. But because he wanted more power than God, he decided to go against Him. God therefore cast him down into his own dark and cruel kingdom, where he will suffer forever more. Lucifer wanted to be the ruler, and he did indeed get his wish. He became the ruler of the evermore suffering, and the utter and terrible darkness, which is the sin of all man.

It isn't God that sends a soul to hell, it is the deeds of that soul that do so. God wants all His children, every single one of them, to be with Him in His Kingdom. But it is the children, who go against the Father.		2008-11-01 14:10:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

I personally don't really believe in a god because, if one is logical, he couldn't exist.

I was always wondering why, if there IS a god, why did he only choose the people of ONE country to tell them he existed (Israel), but people in OTHER countries couldn't even hear of him because he wouldn't tell them. It's like he WANTED them to go to hell. 0_0


In fact, when thinking logically, he must exist.

He didn't choose one country, but it is true that he focused on that one area the most.
Why? If you have to give someone a piece of information to pass on to everyone present in a room, but that person isn't allowed to shout, won't the message travel fastest if given to the person in the middle of said room?		2008-11-01 14:39:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

LOL.

That is all.

Good luck guys, this never ends well. :3		2008-11-01 16:36:00

Author:
Unknown User

LOL.

That is all.

Good luck guys, this never ends well. :3

It will if we BELIEVE hard enough, and with a tiny bit of magic.		2008-11-01 16:39:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

It will if we BELIEVE hard enough, and with a tiny bit of magic.

Eh, I mean, whatever makes your life liveable I guess?

BTW; I know that was sarcasm, but many people really do think that way.. >_>		2008-11-01 16:47:00

Author:
Unknown User

I believe that science rules over religion. I believe that everything has a logical and scientific explanation. Things like Horoscopes, for example, I believe that the conditions and / or lunar cycle can sub-consciously alter peoples personalities, in a scientific way if you know what I mean. Things like how the universe started etc... I believe will have a logical explanation, but we will find this out in time, in the same way that we found the earth was round hundreds of years ago; we just need the right tools and time. I believe that religion is simply a stop-gap until we realize the true meaning of everything, and that while I do not think god exists, the impacts of believing in a higher-being are good; it gives you good moral values as a person. I choose to retain the moral values gained in religion whilst not believing in a higher being/power. However I fully respect the beliefs of anyonelse, that is their belief and until the true answer is publicly revealed, neither of us are true, just speculating on the outcome.

Those are my views on religion and science.		2008-11-01 16:53:00

Author:
floor3013
Posts: 287

^ agreed, except for the whole 'believing in god makes you a better person part'

IMO, it makes your morality fake, doing 'good' things only to please an imaginary deity and ultimately get rewarded in an afterlife (which is an oxymoron) that you have no evidence of is pretty silly and time-wasting IMO. xD

When I do good things, I do it because it makes ME feel good. Not because anyone else is telling me to do them.

So much for not getting involved. I can't resist. I love debunking superstition. :arg:		2008-11-01 16:54:00

Author:
Unknown User

^ agreed, except for the whole 'believing in god makes you a better person part'

IMO, it makes your morality fake, doing 'good' things only to please an imaginary deity and ultimately get rewarded in an afterlife (which is an oxymoron) that you have no evidence of is pretty silly and time-wasting IMO. xD

When I do good things, I do it because it makes ME feel good. Not because anyone else is telling me to do them.

That is one of my major arguements with religion. I know that there are many who don't do good things only to please God and go to heaven, but really, do we really NEED a consequence to do the right thing? Some people say that if you're in a religion, you do the right thing because God tells you to or something- that wouldn't be the right thing really, because, even if there IS a god (because, unlike you Marino, I'm not 100% sure of everything), I wouldn't feed the hungry just because I get rewarded in the afterlife... Why do we NEED a someone to give us treats to do the right thing?

... Hope that makes sense, no?		2008-11-01 17:00:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Yes, it does.

But yeah, I'm a tooth-fairy agnostic, which basically means that I hold the claim that there is a deity and the claim that there is a tooth fairy at the same truth value, which is zero to none.

So yeah, I just call myself an atheist because it is much easier and straight to the point than a 'tooth-fairy agnostic' :arg:		2008-11-01 17:03:00

Author:
Unknown User

I believe that science rules over religion. I believe that everything has a logical and scientific explanation. Things like Horoscopes, for example, I believe that the conditions and / or lunar cycle can sub-consciously alter peoples personalities, in a scientific way if you know what I mean. Things like how the universe started etc... I believe will have a logical explanation, but we will find this out in time, in the same way that we found the earth was round hundreds of years ago; we just need the right tools and time. I believe that religion is simply a stop-gap until we realize the true meaning of everything, and that while I do not think god exists, the impacts of believing in a higher-being are good; it gives you good moral values as a person. I choose to retain the moral values gained in religion whilst not believing in a higher being/power. However I fully respect the beliefs of anyonelse, that is their belief and until the true answer is publicly revealed, neither of us are true, just speculating on the outcome.

Those are my views on religion and science.


I fully agree,
this is about what I believe as well. We are just trying to get an explanation but don't have one yet. I however do not believe the things you say about horoscopes. I think that horoscopes are fake. If you truely believe in a horoscope you can always change everything a littlebit so it just fits what happend to you. You can do the same if you take the horoscope of another sign but because you do not believe in this horoscope you see what is wrong with it's story. I'm getting a bit offtopic though.



Hmm, I see. I know exactly where you come from, because quite frankly, I know of many people who decided to go against what they had been taught, due to the way they were taught, really. If someone forces you to believe something, and doesn't let you even think about the possibilities of another logic or belief, then you're obviously going to push back, and force out what had been literally forced in.

You got it totally wrong. This is a typical misunderstanding. When I say I was raised catholic I mean very very lightly. It wasn't that it was forced in me. I live in a very liberal family with no strict catholic rules. It is just that I was brought to the church when I was younger but from when I was about 9 or 10 we only went with Christmas and Easter. Partly because my parents didn't like the preis, not in a personal way but more as in the thing he told. Another thing is that I do not live in a very strict chatholic country/region/town. A lot of people in my class are raised in the same way as I. With a Catholic base but now don't go to the church anymore.		2008-11-01 17:21:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

^ agreed, except for the whole 'believing in god makes you a better person part'

IMO, it makes your morality fake, doing 'good' things only to please an imaginary deity and ultimately get rewarded in an afterlife (which is an oxymoron) that you have no evidence of is pretty silly and time-wasting IMO. xD

When I do good things, I do it because it makes ME feel good. Not because anyone else is telling me to do them.




I agree with that aswell. Why would you believe in an afterlife just because the bible and priest say so. There has never been ANY evidence.

I however do not think that a god is "imaginary". When you speak of imaginary I think you take it too lightly. I do not think that there is a god in physical form but because so many people believe in him he kind of lives after all.		2008-11-01 17:26:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

The universe is too vast for me not to believe in god. Life itself is so chemically complex that it's mind boggling. So yeah, I believe in the Christian god, but I don't follow one particular denomination. :/2008-11-01 17:28:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

Well yeah, a deity lives in theist's and deist's 'hearts' (minds), just as Santa Clause lives in many childrens' minds.

But you know what? Sometimes you just have to grow up. 		2008-11-01 17:29:00

Author:
Unknown User

Another thing that I thought of after I read RockSauron's post.

I find it very strange that people who believe in god think that people who don't believe in god will go to hell. If someone still is a good man and does good deads will he still go to hell because he doesn't believe in god? wouldn't this make god very cruel and not care about good thing but just about his name. It is said that he forgives people or all of their mistakes but wouldn't that be strange?

that would mean that people who kill people and live their lives without good deads would go to heaven because of the simple fact that they believe and people who live their lives in a good way but don't believe will be punished. I find this very strange.		2008-11-01 17:31:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

Well yeah, a deity lives in theist's and deist's 'hearts' (minds), just as Santa Clause lives in many childrens' minds.

But you know what? Sometimes you just have to grow up.

Lol, I don't think you really got the point

But i'm not going to respond to something like that...		2008-11-01 17:34:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

Yeah, personally I think it's hilarious when people tell me when I will go to hell.

It's really ignorant and I pity them honestly, that they think life is a game between a deity and a daemonic creature. It's a struggle for existence. If you die, you are dead. 'Game' Over. 		2008-11-01 17:35:00

Author:
Unknown User

God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. It is stated many times, in the bible and out, that God loves everyone. The saints, the sinners, the in-between. Everyone. So saying that God WANTS a person to go to hell, would be nothing short of a blasphemy, since it's pretty much going against God's words.

...

It isn't God that sends a soul to hell, it is the deeds of that soul that do so. God wants all His children, every single one of them, to be with Him in His Kingdom. But it is the children, who go against the Father.

God loves every person, as stated in the Bible and as visible in the fact that people still exist. However, (oh, boy, here's where it goes downhill quick) Romans 9:11 and much of the chapter states that He chooses to select some to be especially loved, to the degree that the love He has for the rest in comparison is as hate is to love.

Men, by their sin, warrant eternal, absolute separation from God, which is worse than nonexistence, and this is Hell. And every man would be destined to it, were it not for Christ. However, fallen man's heart is set against God, and in sin will never choose to follow God, because they are corrupted. (Romans 3:10-18) It is only those which God selects to reach in and change their hearts towards Him, those He enables, which can follow Him through Christ, because without that, man is in open rebellion, and wants to be.

Good works are useless for "getting on God's side" because they will never negate the sinfulness man has, and God, being perfect and just, cannot tolerate sin. Works which seem good to man may actually be corrupted by man's evil nature, and not good at all. Instead, good works are what happen as a result of being one of God's children. It's what God's children do. It doesn't make someone God's child.

Edit: Forgot to add this. I'm a Christian. I firmly believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority and the word given by God, and everything else, the church and traditions or otherwise, is below it.		2008-11-01 17:36:00

Author:
Mark D. Stroyer
Posts: 632

Another thing that I thought of after I read RockSauron's post.

I find it very strange that people who believe in god think that people who don't believe in god will go to hell. If someone still is a good man and does good deads will he still go to hell because he doesn't believe in god? wouldn't this make god very cruel and not care about good thing but just about his name.

i don't think if god exists people who don't belief in him will go to hell. i'm not sure if he exists i'm kind of 50-50 about gods existence		2008-11-01 17:40:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

God loves every person, as stated in the Bible and as visible in the fact that people still exist. However, (oh, boy, here's where it goes downhill quick) Romans 9:11 and much of the chapter states that He chooses to select some to be especially loved, to the degree that the love He has for the rest in comparison is as hate is to love.

Men, by their sin, warrant eternal, absolute separation from God, which is worse than nonexistence, and this is Hell. And every man would be destined to it, were it not for Christ. However, fallen man's heart is set against God, and in sin will never choose to follow God, because they are corrupted. (Romans 3:10-18) It is only those which God selects to reach in and change their hearts towards Him, those He enables, which can follow Him through Christ, because without that, man is in open rebellion, and wants to be.

Good works are useless for "getting on God's side" because they will never negate the sinfulness man has, and God, being perfect and just, cannot tolerate sin. Works which seem good to man may actually be corrupted by man's evil nature, and not good at all. Instead, good works are what happen as a result of being one of God's children. It's what God's children do. It doesn't make someone God's child.

Edit: Forgot to add this. I'm a Christian. I firmly believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority and the word given by God, and everything else, the church and traditions or otherwise, is below it.


I don't want to be an **** about this but to me that was just a load of bs.		2008-11-01 17:41:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

That's exactly what I'm talking about...2008-11-01 17:42:00

Author:
Mark D. Stroyer
Posts: 632

NEW TOPIC OR LOCK.

Seriously, right now I am having a very hard time containing my anger towards a few people..		2008-11-01 17:45:00

Author:
Unknown User

i think everyone should CALM DOWN and respect what everyone believes2008-11-01 17:47:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

Actually, considering the lack of yelling and/or other verbal abuses, I'd say it doesn't warrant it. If you're having problems (which I'm sure I helped create), I'm very sorry, but that was very unintentional. I would, however, suggest you refrain from reading this thread if that is going to continue.

This is a debate thread. Debate involves controversy. Enough said.		2008-11-01 17:51:00

Author:
Mark D. Stroyer
Posts: 632

Okay it's time for a time out, I will reopen this in 12 hours if it starts again it will be closed for good.

This will give time for us to cool off, like me. 		2008-11-01 17:52:00

Author:
Unknown User

Alright, I've reopened the thread. Feel free to continue, but keep in mind we'll be keeping an eye on everything here.2008-11-02 15:28:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

Now that it's open again, I'd like to make up my OWN Debate question.


If a person dies but we somehow save their mind, and can replicate the mind, and if we can create a carbon copy clone (remember, this is hypothetical)... Let's say we create a Carbon copy Clone, and clone the mind somehow (recreate everything that was in the mind, all the feelings, personality, memories) but it's NOT the same person- it just looks like him and knows all their memories and stuff.

Would this be able to be considered the same person? We just cloned everything, including their memories- but would it be the SAME person?

Essientally, the question can be considered thusly: is a person a series of thought processes, and thus can be copied like a computer program- or is it something beyond that, in some sense of the word?

I hope that made sense.		2008-11-02 15:52:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

I say yes, it is the exact same genes/physical appearance + consciousness & memories/experiences, so yes, those are what makes up an animal.

Although it is not technically, the 'same' person, yes, they should be treated as such. 		2008-11-02 15:54:00

Author:
Unknown User

What is a person?

A person is a collaboration of things that, when combined, a human being is formed.

You have the mental capabilities, memories, experiences, emotions, character and personality, which when combined you have the soul.
When a physical appearance is thrown over the top, then you have a person.

If all of these things are being cloned, then yes, it is the same person.		2008-11-02 16:20:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

i have a good debate question, is it ok for some one to own a gun?

i know some contry like my own your not alloud a gun which is fair enough, but some time a probelm like a robbery could be sorted if every one else has a gun		2008-11-02 16:31:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

i have a good debate question, is it ok for some one to own a gun?

i know some contry like my own your not alloud a gun which is fair enough, but some time a probelm like a robbery could be sorted if every one else has a gun

So, the problem of anyone being able to get a gun for anything can be solved by giving EVERYONE guns? 0_0		2008-11-02 16:32:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

i think everyone should CALM DOWN and respect what everyone believesLame. You should respect my belief that your belief is wrong.

This whole idea of respecting beliefs is just dumb. Basically, no matter what you believe, I can't call you out as wrong. If you believe that you are a butterfly, I must respect it and just go along with it?

"I'm a butterfly."
"Oh, that's nice. How big are your wings? How long did it take you to live in a caccoon?"

In what world would this happen? This is how it should've gone down.

"I'm a butterfly."
"Are you high or are you crazy? Seriously, I am about to call 911 to get you some help."

No, thank you to that. I don't respect anyone's belief and you shouldn't respect mine.		2008-11-02 16:36:00

Author:
Voltiare
Posts: 646

Exactly, and to quote you if you don't mind..

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

2008-11-02 16:39:00

Author:
Unknown User

What is a person?

A person is a collaboration of things that, when combined, a human being is formed.

You have the mental capabilities, memories, experiences, emotions, character and personality, which when combined you have the soul.
When a physical appearance is thrown over the top, then you have a person.

If all of these things are being cloned, then yes, it is the same person.

so does this mean me and my twin are the same person, cause we where orginally the same.

about the gun thing, i belief that every one has the right to defend them selfs, but i belief their should be limitation as well, you you have crimal record then you cant have a gun, if you are not mentally stable you are not allow a gun		2008-11-02 16:43:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

so does this mean me and my twin are the same person

Do you have the same exact memories? o_0		2008-11-02 16:45:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Do you have the same exact memories? o_0

not now, but before we was born, but it come down to when some belief what stage does a baby become a person		2008-11-02 17:00:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

not now, but before we was born, but it come down to when some belief what stage does a baby become a person

But what ScytheofGrim said has nothing to do with that at all, so how was that a good arguement to that?		2008-11-02 17:03:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Lame. You should respect my belief that your belief is wrong.

This whole idea of respecting beliefs is just dumb. Basically, no matter what you believe, I can't call you out as wrong. If you believe that you are a butterfly, I must respect it and just go along with it?

"I'm a butterfly."
"Oh, that's nice. How big are your wings? How long did it take you to live in a caccoon?"

In what world would this happen? This is how it should've gone down.

"I'm a butterfly."
"Are you high or are you crazy? Seriously, I am about to call 911 to get you some help."

No, thank you to that. I don't respect anyone's belief and you shouldn't respect mine.

That's a horrible analogy.

It is very possible to respect one's opinion, while still opposing it.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of respect, which is why everything you have said falls apart.


so does this mean me and my twin are the same person, cause we where orginally the same.


Oh, so your twin has the same mental capabilities, memories, experiences, emotions, character and personality as you?
Well then, make sure to tell them to become independent sooner rather than later, if they've even managed to succeed in the impossible.

And, to everyone, please think about your responses before throwing them out into the world, it will save a lot of people a huge hassle.

Also, there seems to be a slight lack of structure as to the topics being debated at the moment.
There shouldn't be two topics up at the same time, it isn't as effective as having everyone focus on one subject.		2008-11-02 17:13:00

Author:
ScytheOfGrim
Posts: 438

Yeah guys, focus on the 'what makes up a human being?' debate first, the gun topic was just kind of interjected. 2008-11-02 17:48:00

Author:
Unknown User

Lame. You should respect my belief that your belief is wrong.

This whole idea of respecting beliefs is just dumb. Basically, no matter what you believe, I can't call you out as wrong. If you believe that you are a butterfly, I must respect it and just go along with it?

"I'm a butterfly."
"Oh, that's nice. How big are your wings? How long did it take you to live in a caccoon?"

In what world would this happen? This is how it should've gone down.

"I'm a butterfly."
"Are you high or are you crazy? Seriously, I am about to call 911 to get you some help."

No, thank you to that. I don't respect anyone's belief and you shouldn't respect mine.
i never said you couldn't say anybody is wrong just do it respectfully.

and about the butterfly thing i meant an opinion about something. we can have definite proof someone is not a butterfly but you can't have proof on something like is it ok to kill someone in a war because it's an opinion if it's ok to kill someone in a war.		2008-11-02 18:13:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

Yeah guys, focus on the 'what makes up a human being?' debate first, the gun topic was just kind of interjected.


sorry lol
anywho back on topic		2008-11-02 19:27:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

That's a horrible analogy.

It is very possible to respect one's opinion, while still opposing it.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of respect, which is why everything you have said falls apart.Isn't that what people were doing in the first place? No comment stuck out as insulting the person.


i never said you couldn't say anybody is wrong just do it respectfully.

and about the butterfly thing i meant an opinion about something. we can have definite proof someone is not a butterfly but you can't have proof on something like is it ok to kill someone in a war because it's an opinion if it's ok to kill someone in a war.Again, that's what people were doing. There was nothing wrong with any of the comments that I saw.

You cannot have definite proof of somebody not being a butterfly. Even if you saw them, testing their DNA, etc., they could say they were butterfly in spirit or something. Or they could just say that their looks and genetics are misleading you (because you don't have faith or something).		2008-11-02 21:04:00

Author:
Voltiare
Posts: 646

Maybe we should all concentrate on the actual debate instead of arguing about how we should debate. 2008-11-02 23:41:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

Maybe we should all concentrate on the actual debate instead of arguing about how we should debate.

Very well.

First topic:

who do you find more attractive: tom cruise or Mel Gibson?

judge: what is the meaning of all this?

your honor, I feel so confident of ScytheofGrim's guilt that I feel I can waste the courts time by rating the super hunks!

Marino: argh, ye've got me vote, laddie!		2008-11-03 00:47:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

What is the current topic again?

In pertinence to the question of bearing firearms, I see no justifiable reason for the ownership of a gun for security. If everyone has a gun it would obviously only cause more violence. The difference between US and Canadian gun deaths is astounding, guess which one has more relaxed gun laws?

The use of a gun distances the aggressor from their actions. There was a time where if you wanted to kill someone, you'd have to sharpen your rock or whatever then learn how to strike them properly. Now we have guns and the minute people get angry they just point and pull the trigger.

I live in Australia, and you need a license to own a gun, and very very few people in suburban areas own them, it's mostly for farmers and the like. There will always be guns around, but more people having them doesn't make things any safer.		2008-11-03 02:58:00

Author:
Dropbear
Posts: 272

What is the current topic again?

In pertinence to the question of bearing firearms, I see no justifiable reason for the ownership of a gun for security. If everyone has a gun it would obviously only cause more violence. The difference between US and Canadian gun deaths is astounding, guess which one has more relaxed gun laws?

The use of a gun distances the aggressor from their actions. There was a time where if you wanted to kill someone, you'd have to sharpen your rock or whatever then learn how to strike them properly. Now we have guns and the minute people get angry they just point and pull the trigger.

I live in Australia, and you need a license to own a gun, and very very few people in suburban areas own them, it's mostly for farmers and the like. There will always be guns around, but more people having them doesn't make things any safer.

It's funny, in the aftermath of Virgina Tech I was reading an Internet acticle and it's comments, and some guy said that the best way to have prevented Virgina Tech was to give every person on campus a gun.

So it would be even easier for the gunman and other people like him to get guns. MEYESSS!

... Anyway, yeah, I never understood how making everyone be able to get guns by walking into Walmart is somehow going to prevent gun violence... what, will they not use their guns? Everyone is just carrying a gun around?

Hm, I wonder what their discussions at the Water Cooler are... what type of gun they're carrying at the time? cool.

>_> yeah <_<		2008-11-03 03:24:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

For some odd reason, I've never really cared about war. I find myself angry when I heard about injustice, yet when I hear about war, nothing, I just draw a blank card. When I think of war, I only think of the cause and effect, and whether it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant, and even if it was, I don't feel any emotion when I hear about a soldiers dying. All I can think about is the wrongs that led up to the war, I get angry, literally, over them. I got mad when I read about how the Civil War started, yet I felt nothing when my teacher told us about the slaughtering that took place at Gettysburg.

I know, I'm heartless, and it's people like me who start wars. I don't know how to defend myself here, I can't. :/

I know how you feel bro, I'm exactly the same.		2008-11-03 03:41:00

Author:
UmJammerSully
Posts: 1097

I know how you feel bro, I'm exactly the same.

Remember what Stalin said:

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."		2008-11-03 03:43:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Who remembers this thread?

Why did it die again?

I'd love to see some well thought out debates on here!

Anyone got a question in mind?		2009-06-24 08:38:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

M-M-M-META NECRO!

Well, you should make a new one Stix.		2009-06-24 10:52:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

Make a new thread?2009-06-24 11:11:00

Author:
Stix489
Posts: 2080

Who remembers this thread?

Why did it die again?

I'd love to see some well thought out debates on here!

Anyone got a question in mind?

I haven't read the whole thread, but several controversial topics:


Hiroshima - Right Or Wrong and use of the atomic bomb as a deterrent
The Death Penalty
Abortion
*** Marriage


EDIT: Why does the forum block out g a y? Are people really so immature that they use that as an insult? 		2009-06-24 14:23:00

Author:
BSprague
Posts: 2325

I haven't read the whole thread, but several controversial topics:


Hiroshima - Right Or Wrong and use of the atomic bomb as a deterrent
The Death Penalty
Abortion
*** Marriage


EDIT: Why does the forum block out g a y? Are people really so immature that they use that as an insult?


Hiroshima - wrong. They purposely killed non-combatents, that is wrong under any circumstances,
The death penalty - wrong, killing someone except in self-defence of in certain circumstances in war is wrong.
Abortion - This is 1 question that I can't decide if it is moraly right or wrong
homosexual marriage - Leave them get married, it's no big deal.

that's my opinion on all of them things.		2009-06-24 22:46:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

TAX EXEMPTION!

Barack Obama is WRONG FOR AMERICA!

THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!		2009-06-25 01:50:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

EDIT: Why does the forum block out g a y? Are people really so immature that they use that as an insult?

Yes they are, and in future please don't bypass the language filter by typing spaces in between banned words, it is against the site rules.


Thank you

Cheers QuozL		2009-06-25 02:26:00

Author:
QuozL
Posts: 921

Yes they are, and in future please don't bypass the language filter by typing spaces in between banned words, it is against the site rules.


Thank you

Cheers QuozL
Sorry about that, I was just perplexed by the fact that my completely harmless statement had been censored. It won't happen again. 		2009-06-25 02:54:00

Author:
BSprague
Posts: 2325

Sorry about that, I was just perplexed by the fact that my completely harmless statement had been censored. It won't happen again.

Not a problem, there have been some issues in the past with immature users bypassing the language filter, I understand your perplexity regarding the word being on the banned list but unfortunately it has been used previously to attack / denigrate other users so was added to the list. Thanks for understanding our position.

Cheers QuozL		2009-06-25 03:04:00

Author:
QuozL
Posts: 921

How about a debate on what's going on in Iran or Israel, Palestine at the moment? They could throw up some interesting and potentially heated bebates.2009-06-26 12:26:00

Author:
Sosaku
Posts: 146

Man, there is just no end to this war. As long as those radicals have a firm hold over Iran and the lesser Middle East, I don't see an end to terrorism. I mean, look at it: Israel is constantly bombarded, Iranian radicals are recieving nuclear devices from who-knows where, and the other countries have been warring eachother so long that it's almost inevitable that there's going to be a World War III. And their only targets are perhaps the only two countries still in the Middle East: The U.K. and the U.S. Sure, it's died down a bit over there, but once we turn our backs, they'll be at it again. Isn't it time for someone else to be fighting their wars? Oh, wait, that's our job... 2009-06-26 17:23:00

Author:
Outlaw-Jack
Posts: 5757

Man, there is just no end to this war. As long as those radicals have a firm hold over Iran and the lesser Middle East, I don't see an end to terrorism. I mean, look at it: Israel is constantly bombarded, Iranian radicals are recieving nuclear devices from who-knows where, and the other countries have been warring eachother so long that it's almost inevitable that there's going to be a World War III. And their only targets are perhaps the only two countries still in the Middle East: The U.K. and the U.S. Sure, it's died down a bit over there, but once we turn our backs, they'll be at it again. Isn't it time for someone else to be fighting their wars? Oh, wait, that's our job...

Unfortunatley Western intervention in the region is one of the causes of alot of conflict in the region. I don't recall any Middle Eastern country ever asking the U.S. or any other country to "Fight their wars for them".

Why does Iran have a theocracy? Largely because the U.S. engineered a coup in 1953 that overthrew a popular reformist and then continued to back Iran's brutal autocratic ruler as a strategic ally in the region.

Why is there an Israel/Palestine conflict? Because Britain occupied Palestine following WWI and facilitated the immigration of Jews to the region and the establishment of a Jewish state in opposition to the wishes of the native population. Over 95% of whom were not Jewish.

Why is there sectarian conflict in Lebanon? Because when France occupied the region after WWI it wanted to create a state that favoured the maronite Christians over the religious and ethnic groups in the region such as Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Druze.

How is the Saudi autocracy able to stay in power? Through massive revenues created by oil it sells to the west.

Why has Pakistan had a military dictator in power for the majority of its short history? Because the U.S. has backed dictators like al-Haq and Musharef as a military ally.

How did the Taliban take control of Afghanistan? Because they were trained, funded and backed by the U.S. during the Soviet invasion. In the process using the Pakistani dictator who overthrew and executed Benazir Bhutto's farther as an intermediatory. Enriching the dictators regime and his backing of hardline Islamist groups in the process.

Who introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East? France did by selling nuclear weapons and technology to Israel back in the 50's.

Why are 100's of civillians being killed every week in Iraq? Because the U.S. invaded and removed a dictator and regime it had previous backed during the cold war and again during the Iran-Iraq war.

I could go on but I think you're starting to get the picture. Not that the Middle East would be a bowl of roses were it not for foreign intervention but more often than not short sighted foreign interference has gone on to have very serious repercussions later down the line. Repercussions that they have to face and not us.

Actually knowing some of the history of the Middle East makes it pretty clear why many in the region harbour resentment of the U.S. and the West. The Last thing they want is any western or outside nation fighting its wars for them. They want to put an end to foreign intervention and its negative effects. It frustrates me when people ignorantly pass judgement on the Middle East without knowing a single thing about the regions history or even their own nations part in that history. I'd hazard a bet that 90% of Americans have never heard of the 1953 CIA coup, or 90% of the British or the French aware that they occupied and controlled most of the region right up to the 50's.		2009-06-27 05:56:00

Author:
Sosaku
Posts: 146


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.