| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
Poland - Japan
- Oh how the tables h-
- Our learnings.
- Batman
- Boyfriend
- Giant Dandelions
- If you´re happy an-
- Can't be Unseen
- The best Simpsons q-
- The main problem of-
- Thanks You
- The Cake is a lie
- son rwanson
- Crafty wasps...
- Do you think I this-
- The Lactocalypse
- Oh You
- Brace yourselves, s-
- This is how i look.-
Comments(26184):
#22400
-
paranoidwzy (01/29/2013) [-] I wonder this. What is you definition of freedom? What do you think it is for you?
#22417 to #22397
-
pebar ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] Nay
It's human nature to be self-centered.
Free markets are motivated by self-interests
True communism has people thinking the community is more important than the individual.
Socialist governments still have to have people to run them. Those people are still self-centered, just look at North Korea and the elite. Unless human nature changes, it's simply way more efficient to have a free market that actually thrives on self-interest.
It's human nature to be self-centered.
Free markets are motivated by self-interests
True communism has people thinking the community is more important than the individual.
Socialist governments still have to have people to run them. Those people are still self-centered, just look at North Korea and the elite. Unless human nature changes, it's simply way more efficient to have a free market that actually thrives on self-interest.
#22389
-
N. Korean citizen (01/29/2013) [-]
i believe it's not a womans fault if she gets raped, it's her clothes fault (or lack of it)
#22388
-
cleverguy (01/29/2013) [-] any ideas on how to reform the immigration system so it is easier to gain citizenship so people stop coming over illegally and other people stop bitching about it?
i dont know the system very well myself, all i know is amnesty is ridiculous.
i dont know the system very well myself, all i know is amnesty is ridiculous.
#22386
-
pebar ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] I'd hate to seem cold, but with the sandy hook shooting, 20 kids died. With all the gun violence in the US, 20 more is negligible. Whoop dee fucking doo... at least that many people die violently every single day yet the US is still considered a fairly safe country (relative to total violent crime, not just homicide).
So the debate... does the media have too much effect on government? The media causes the people to panic and the people push for gun control without even knowing what the 2nd means. Are these shootings blown way out of proportion?
So the debate... does the media have too much effect on government? The media causes the people to panic and the people push for gun control without even knowing what the 2nd means. Are these shootings blown way out of proportion?
#22390 to #22386
-
aclopolipse (01/29/2013) [-] Yes, yes, and yes. The uninformed connoisseurs of popular television may be led to believe that the only shootings that ever happen are perpetrated by crazy people in suburbs and taken out on average Americans, when most shootings (that is, the shootings that account for much of the death-by-firearm stats in this country) are carried out by large street gangs in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles against other gangs, police, and civilian targets alike.
#22374
-
spamspamspamspamsp (01/29/2013) [-]
SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM
#22351
-
CapnInterwebz ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] Joe Biden might run for the Presidency in 2016?
If there is a god, he'd prevent this from happening, right?
If there is a god, he'd prevent this from happening, right?
#22335
-
feelythefeel (01/29/2013) [-] Purely regarding the economic well being and overall stability of a society without considering other factors, is it generally worthwhile to make a switch from any form of religious state to a state of secularism, assuming that this would take place before secularism becomes a global standard (Say, during or earlier than the societies equivalent of the renaissance)?
#22391 to #22335
-
aclopolipse (01/29/2013) [-] Only if regulations and institutions based around the earlier religious government's ideology (i.e. a state church) were costly to the state. There is little difference in strict economic terms between a religious state and a secular one.
#22379 to #22335
-
repostsrepost (01/29/2013) [-]
Depends what you mean by secularism. You can have a secular state that stomps out any individual religious belief that it feels threatens its secular mandate. Similar to policies enacted by many communist states. Such a society would be little different from religious states in the Middle Ages. The ideology would be different but the result the same. But if you are referring to a secular state that tolerates all religious and nonreligious beliefs then I would agree. But that degree of toleration and coexistence can easily exist in a religious state as well. In short, whether they are religious or secular is irrelevant, it's all about the type of government that exists.
#22377 to #22335
-
lecherouslad (01/29/2013) [-] Are you asking if it's worth our money to secure the freedom of an individual's religion? Because that would entirely depend on the opinion of the speaker.
Yes, I believe that secularism is a noncore expenditure IF you value diversity and individual rights to retain such diversity. However it is non-essential to the operation of a government.
to summarize, potatoe.
Yes, I believe that secularism is a noncore expenditure IF you value diversity and individual rights to retain such diversity. However it is non-essential to the operation of a government.
to summarize, potatoe.
#22329
-
frozo (01/29/2013) [-] So explain why graduated income tax is necessary. If I'm rich, why do I want to pay more money just because I worked harder? It would make sense if it was a flat amount but a percentage scales already from the amount of money you have.
Also, some French millionaire moved to Russia and got citizenship cause France got 70% taxes on him. Russia has like 15%.
Keep it civil peeps.
Also, some French millionaire moved to Russia and got citizenship cause France got 70% taxes on him. Russia has like 15%.
Keep it civil peeps.
#22392 to #22329
-
aclopolipse (01/29/2013) [-] On an ideological level, I suppose that it's the idea that society has given them success, wealth, and power, and that they are supposed to "thank" the society for their successful enterprises by paying additional money in taxes.
On an economic level, it would seem to make sense for the wealthy to pay more. They have the greatest funds, and their quality of life is hardly hampered by a high tax rate, given that they have more than enough money to cover any and all costs of transportation, housing, grocery, and utilities. The poor, by contrast, live on a tightrope of sorts, and a higher tax rate for them would toss them off-balance because, while they would normally have made enough to survive, the taxes make it difficult (or impossible) to cover living costs.
On an economic level, it would seem to make sense for the wealthy to pay more. They have the greatest funds, and their quality of life is hardly hampered by a high tax rate, given that they have more than enough money to cover any and all costs of transportation, housing, grocery, and utilities. The poor, by contrast, live on a tightrope of sorts, and a higher tax rate for them would toss them off-balance because, while they would normally have made enough to survive, the taxes make it difficult (or impossible) to cover living costs.
#22330 to #22329
-
N. Korean citizen (01/29/2013) [-]
Because its not feasible to tax someone who literally earns just enough money to survive. To someone earning 10k a year, a 10% tax could literally mean homelessness or not, but to someone earning 100k a year a 20% tax isn't going bankrupt them at all.
Furthermore its a myth that all who earn more work harder. Some do, true, but some were born lucky. Take Palin for example. She earns who the fuck knows, but its a hell of a lot more than my school's janitor and that dude works close to 60 hours a week doing hard work. Take me; I'm a computer science and math major. I can expect to make 60k the year I graduate but thats still nothing compared to what CEOs make, and yet they know very little compared to me and other classmates.
Furthermore its a myth that all who earn more work harder. Some do, true, but some were born lucky. Take Palin for example. She earns who the fuck knows, but its a hell of a lot more than my school's janitor and that dude works close to 60 hours a week doing hard work. Take me; I'm a computer science and math major. I can expect to make 60k the year I graduate but thats still nothing compared to what CEOs make, and yet they know very little compared to me and other classmates.
#22297
-
sirthomasburr (01/28/2013) [-] Hey everyone, I was really board in Politics today so I drew up a new system of Government based of the British Parliamentary style of Government. Things like the Monarchy and the names of the branches of the Legislature give it away, but have a look and tell me what you think/point out any glaring errors or terrible flaws with it.
#22409 to #22315
-
sirthomasburr (01/29/2013) [-] Lol, true, but I wouldn't want to upset the political establishment too much with a republic, we Brits are fond of old Queenie and she gets us a hell of a lot of money every year
#22301 to #22285
-
pebar ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] If people were able to stick to their own state with the legislation they want, there wouldn't be massive shitstorms all the time. California already has an assault weapons ban and I couldn't care less because I don't live there. But now that fucktard who doesn't even know basic history wants that ban across the whole US. Democracies are great, at least for small communities. But when we have a massive country like ours, there's the tyranny of the majority idea when controversial laws are passed with 51%. If people with similar interests grouped together and formed smaller laws, we wouldn't have this issue. That's the whole point of having our country split into states in the first place. Our country was intended to be more like a strong alliance of small countries with free trade with the federal government setting only the basic guidelines, ie the constitution. But now time and time again the federal government has done things it wasn't meant to have the authority to do using the all powerful commerce clause. Regulating interstate commerce is part of its duty, yes, but as long as it deals with.... you know.... actual commerce.
TL;DR - the federal government meddles too much in state affairs and that's why we have these huge national debates.
TL;DR - the federal government meddles too much in state affairs and that's why we have these huge national debates.
#22201
-
eight (01/28/2013) [-] Would a world without laws preventing violence be more peaceful? Let me explain.
Laws are supposed to stop people from doing socially unacceptable things. Yet, laws that are supposed to prevent killing and robbery do not prevent it from happening. Laws also prevent revenge by the victims.
My point is, what if we took it away? If we went by a vigilante point of view, that every crime deserves an equal punishment, wouldn't crime be lessened?
Imagine this scenario:
A robber breaks into a home, steals stuff, is confronted by a child living in the home and the robber shoots the child who was screaming for help. He gets away only to be picked up by the police. The law protects the criminal from any vengeance by the victims family.
Imagine the same scenario, but that robber isn't handcuffed because there are no laws to prevent him from stealing. The father wants revenge for his sons death, hunts him down and kills him to balance everything out.
Would that man have even robbed the place knowing that there is not a law to protect him from being hunted down for his socially unacceptable act?
Think of it like guns. If a criminal knows somebody has a gun in their house, they will likely choose not to invade it. If criminal knows they can be hunted down for any crime they commit, would they choose to do it?
Obviously some people will ALWAYS be criminals, but I am saying without laws preventing violence there might be less due to fear that any action you take can be punished to any degree by the people around you. People would think twice before doing something bad.
I hope I am being clear enough.
Laws are supposed to stop people from doing socially unacceptable things. Yet, laws that are supposed to prevent killing and robbery do not prevent it from happening. Laws also prevent revenge by the victims.
My point is, what if we took it away? If we went by a vigilante point of view, that every crime deserves an equal punishment, wouldn't crime be lessened?
Imagine this scenario:
A robber breaks into a home, steals stuff, is confronted by a child living in the home and the robber shoots the child who was screaming for help. He gets away only to be picked up by the police. The law protects the criminal from any vengeance by the victims family.
Imagine the same scenario, but that robber isn't handcuffed because there are no laws to prevent him from stealing. The father wants revenge for his sons death, hunts him down and kills him to balance everything out.
Would that man have even robbed the place knowing that there is not a law to protect him from being hunted down for his socially unacceptable act?
Think of it like guns. If a criminal knows somebody has a gun in their house, they will likely choose not to invade it. If criminal knows they can be hunted down for any crime they commit, would they choose to do it?
Obviously some people will ALWAYS be criminals, but I am saying without laws preventing violence there might be less due to fear that any action you take can be punished to any degree by the people around you. People would think twice before doing something bad.
I hope I am being clear enough.
#22290 to #22201
-
pebar ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] According to the social contract theory, governments form when people give up certain rights to greater ensure the rest. The laws against murder are there so that instead of it being a 1v1 issue that could potentially involve others, like families who want more revenge, or the avenger killing more people than he should, it becomes the murderer vs the community. The community also doesn't allow the victim or his family to seek justice on their own because that would only lead to more deaths.
People still remain armed but there are very strict limits on the use of deadly force. The criminals are greatly discouraged if they think the victim may be armed (this is kinda turning into a gun control debate; oh well), but there are still laws providing further restriction.
People still remain armed but there are very strict limits on the use of deadly force. The criminals are greatly discouraged if they think the victim may be armed (this is kinda turning into a gun control debate; oh well), but there are still laws providing further restriction.
#22294 to #22292
-
pebar ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] IDK about where you live but here in north dakota, the use of deadly force is permitted if (quoting the state code):
--When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such force is
necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence.
An individual is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to that individual or another when using deadly force if:
--The individual against whom the deadly force was used was in the process of
unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered and
remains within a dwelling, place of work, or occupied motor home or travel trailer
--The individual who uses deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an
unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had
occurred.
The presumption in subsection 1 may be rebutted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual who used the deadly force did not have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to that individual or another
--When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such force is
necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence.
An individual is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to that individual or another when using deadly force if:
--The individual against whom the deadly force was used was in the process of
unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered and
remains within a dwelling, place of work, or occupied motor home or travel trailer
--The individual who uses deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an
unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had
occurred.
The presumption in subsection 1 may be rebutted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual who used the deadly force did not have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to that individual or another
#22277 to #22201
-
akkere ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] Except then you'll have the people fall victim to organized crime, in which mobster-type groups and even simple street gangs will run the streets by having more firepower.
The idea of vigilantism seems like a good idea because it's fired up by fiction that depicts relatively trained professionals performing effective justice, against criminals that have no strategic capability.
Organized Crime groups are very much more capable to take out professionals, just as they would be able to incite fear into the community now that they acknowledge they don't have to worry about government forces intervening.
Yes, the system has its flaws. Yes, there's holes in the government forces. But saying "fuck this" and replacing it with a "solution" that only runs on a simple implication that the community will be filled with strong people capable of taking down organized crime is naive at best.
The idea of vigilantism seems like a good idea because it's fired up by fiction that depicts relatively trained professionals performing effective justice, against criminals that have no strategic capability.
Organized Crime groups are very much more capable to take out professionals, just as they would be able to incite fear into the community now that they acknowledge they don't have to worry about government forces intervening.
Yes, the system has its flaws. Yes, there's holes in the government forces. But saying "fuck this" and replacing it with a "solution" that only runs on a simple implication that the community will be filled with strong people capable of taking down organized crime is naive at best.
#22291 to #22277
-
eight (01/28/2013) [-] I disagree. I think if everybody fears the consequences of their actions, they will think twice about doing it. Laws do not prevent criminals from breaking them. If anything, it protects the criminals from the people who seek a just punishment. Criminals do not fear law breaking because often times the punishment does not fit the crime.
Prison sentence is more of a vacation for the destitute. It keeps them alive, gives them a job and even teaches them a skill...all for the price of time.
Prison sentence is more of a vacation for the destitute. It keeps them alive, gives them a job and even teaches them a skill...all for the price of time.
#22296 to #22291
-
akkere ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] Organized Mobs and Gangs won't.
They weren't afraid when their respective rivals groups were going to be out to kill them, they'll hardly be afraid now that they don't have any form of official organized law that would mount up to their established power.
Especially with government intervention being removed, the cities can now be turned into literal battlefields, causing blood shed that's not even worth the chance for vengeance, especially when most of the people wouldn't be capable of enacting vengeance in the first place.
Just because the justice system has its flaws doesn't warrant to turn the cities into free war zones in which the gang leaders become warlords.
They weren't afraid when their respective rivals groups were going to be out to kill them, they'll hardly be afraid now that they don't have any form of official organized law that would mount up to their established power.
Especially with government intervention being removed, the cities can now be turned into literal battlefields, causing blood shed that's not even worth the chance for vengeance, especially when most of the people wouldn't be capable of enacting vengeance in the first place.
Just because the justice system has its flaws doesn't warrant to turn the cities into free war zones in which the gang leaders become warlords.
#22196
-
thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-] I guess this is a good place to start this:
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? Why or why not?
Prove your point without getting angry
Go.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? Why or why not?
Prove your point without getting angry
Go.
#22328 to #22196
-
frozo (01/29/2013) [-] My uncle had this thing when he thought that they shouldn't "marry", since by definition "marry" implies that it's a religious ritual between a man and a woman. Logically, it makes a bit of sense since it can be called something else.
But, I really don't care.
But, I really don't care.
#22334 to #22328
-
qertvbnpop (01/29/2013) [-] That's always been my exact position. Because marriage implies holy matrimony. So why not just have a homosexual version that allows all the same rights but isn't associated with "holy matrimony"
But then there's a lot of conservatives who don't even think homosexuals should live together. But there's really no legal reasons for thinking that.
But then there's a lot of conservatives who don't even think homosexuals should live together. But there's really no legal reasons for thinking that.
#22396 to #22387
-
qertvbnpop (01/29/2013) [-] They don't have nearly the same rights. You can't get joint taxes or insurance, it doesn't create citizenship, plus it all is void if you cross state boundaries to one that doesn't have it.
I literally mean have 100% of the rights as marriage, but just by a different name and don't force the church to allow it because generally forcing something on religious people ends badly.
I literally mean have 100% of the rights as marriage, but just by a different name and don't force the church to allow it because generally forcing something on religious people ends badly.
#22323 to #22196
-
mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-] i could care less, whatever they do in their life is not my problem, i just wouldnt like to see them like kissing in public and stuff like that. they can be gay but i dont like it when they start showing their "proudness" or thinking they get a better/special treatment just bcause theyre gay. (story time) i was walking out of the library and as i turned left i saw 2 guys kissing right outside and we were like wtf. the whole day people kept making fun of them. (fags and other names , puto joto maricon punal etc.) I dont mind when they do whatever they do but just not infront of me cause it kinda pisses me off and I Dont Care.
#22380 to #22327
-
mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-] guy and a girl are like natural or normal . something like that. in my society, its kinda wrong to be gay. thats the culture and how i was raised up as a mexican american. one friend of my mom is gay and when we go to their parties hes cool . he doesnt act gay and i barely remember that he is but hes cool. but when people start acting different it gets weird for others. something like that
#22381 to #22380
-
Ruspanic ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] I don't see how it might get weird, but it's not really something that can be helped. There's no reason to treat them differently for it, unless they're literally parading in the street in body paint. gay people don't choose to be romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex - who would make that choice, given the stigma surrounding homosexuality?
#22312 to #22310
-
kanade ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what, stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the Sabbath? These are all things which are religiously-based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed, and based upon consequences.
For example:
Hypothesis: Pedophilia is wrong
Reasoning: Children are too young for the concept of consenting sexual behaviour
Consequence: A pedophile having sex with a child harms the child
Conclusion: Pedophillia is immoral because it purposely harms
Hypothesis: Homosexuality is wrong
Reasoning: My book says so
Consequence: Homosexuality does not inflict damage upon two consenting adults
Conclusion: There is no irrefutible reason to see why homosexuality is harmfull therefor should not be considered immoral
This is what we call logic. Maybe you'll learn more about it once you start reading books that aren't fiction.
For example:
Hypothesis: Pedophilia is wrong
Reasoning: Children are too young for the concept of consenting sexual behaviour
Consequence: A pedophile having sex with a child harms the child
Conclusion: Pedophillia is immoral because it purposely harms
Hypothesis: Homosexuality is wrong
Reasoning: My book says so
Consequence: Homosexuality does not inflict damage upon two consenting adults
Conclusion: There is no irrefutible reason to see why homosexuality is harmfull therefor should not be considered immoral
This is what we call logic. Maybe you'll learn more about it once you start reading books that aren't fiction.
#22313 to #22312
-
coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-] how old are you? 14? emotions dont win arguments. stop projecting about your lack of faith. nobody cares. learn a little something about the faith that you are bashing. those were all punishments at the time. they didnt have a jail system or even DEMOCRACY.
who made the decision that the 15 year old girl cant fall in love (rationally) with the 30 year old dude? why cant the get married? why cant they have sex? who made that decision? your reasonings will be all about "feeling good about it" LOL .
something has to define your logic. that is called morals buddy.
who made the decision that the 15 year old girl cant fall in love (rationally) with the 30 year old dude? why cant the get married? why cant they have sex? who made that decision? your reasonings will be all about "feeling good about it" LOL .
something has to define your logic. that is called morals buddy.
#22314 to #22313
-
kanade ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] Yes, exactly they where moralities AT THE TIME. Which means that morality changes over time. We make our own moral decisions. It's really cute how your argue over "morals" and yet you ADMIT that morality changes over time.
Again these aren't based on my own emotions, they are based on logic and reasoning. It's not my "emotions" that decide that 5 year olds get traumatized, it's a fact. Just like it is not my "emotions" that make homosexually okay, it's a fact that it's okay because it harms nobody.
Just face it, we evolve, we constantly realize new things and become better. It used to be "moral" to own slave and to treat women like shit. It was human LOGIC that made us decide to give women and black people rights.
In most countries 15 year old is the age of consent where a teenager can in fact have sex legally, and if people can provide arguments for saying that a 15 year old can rationally love a 30 year old without regrets it's not up to me to stop them.
Again these aren't based on my own emotions, they are based on logic and reasoning. It's not my "emotions" that decide that 5 year olds get traumatized, it's a fact. Just like it is not my "emotions" that make homosexually okay, it's a fact that it's okay because it harms nobody.
Just face it, we evolve, we constantly realize new things and become better. It used to be "moral" to own slave and to treat women like shit. It was human LOGIC that made us decide to give women and black people rights.
In most countries 15 year old is the age of consent where a teenager can in fact have sex legally, and if people can provide arguments for saying that a 15 year old can rationally love a 30 year old without regrets it's not up to me to stop them.
#22316 to #22314
-
coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-] youre the cute one cause youre so simple :)
reread my comment please :) i said punishments change honey, not moralities
what about the 14 year old girl? is it right or wrong? is it moral or not? you are just handing the baton off to someone else. every argument comes from a moral stance and if you claim to have no morals then your arguments will waver in the wind.
i agree we evolve, science improves our lives and our technology. that is good. duh. adultery is ALWAYS bad. murder is ALWAYS bad.
slavery was never "moral" --feminist rights movements is not a "moral" movement.
those are cultural changes. I agree CULTURES CHANGE :) again, duh.
reread my comment please :) i said punishments change honey, not moralities
what about the 14 year old girl? is it right or wrong? is it moral or not? you are just handing the baton off to someone else. every argument comes from a moral stance and if you claim to have no morals then your arguments will waver in the wind.
i agree we evolve, science improves our lives and our technology. that is good. duh. adultery is ALWAYS bad. murder is ALWAYS bad.
slavery was never "moral" --feminist rights movements is not a "moral" movement.
those are cultural changes. I agree CULTURES CHANGE :) again, duh.
#22317 to #22316
-
kanade ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-] Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)
Punishing someone for working on the sabbath is a decision that used to be considered good (moral) but now bad (immoral) therefor this MORAL decision changed and therefor our thoughts on MORALITY did too.
Cultural changes ARE moral changes. Because culture determines what is good and bad, and just like our cultural change gave women and blacks equal rights, so does culture change to give homosexuals equal rights.
If it's right or wrong for the 14 year old girl to do these things depends if the girl gets hurt in the process. If she does then it's wrong, if she doesn't it's right. That's first grade logic.
Punishing someone for working on the sabbath is a decision that used to be considered good (moral) but now bad (immoral) therefor this MORAL decision changed and therefor our thoughts on MORALITY did too.
Cultural changes ARE moral changes. Because culture determines what is good and bad, and just like our cultural change gave women and blacks equal rights, so does culture change to give homosexuals equal rights.
If it's right or wrong for the 14 year old girl to do these things depends if the girl gets hurt in the process. If she does then it's wrong, if she doesn't it's right. That's first grade logic.
#22318 to #22317
-
coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-] they have equal rights. they can vote and do anything they want. it is not a civil RIGHT. it is an idea. bottom line.
so your definition of morality now hinges on harm. ok LOL
i really dont know alot about working on the sabbath and all that entailed. and you may be right. morality changes with culture. it is not right but it happens. same thing with looking at porn, it desensitized you. like blood and gore in a movie or grand theft auto. but that does not mean that it is right. there are reasons we had/have morals. they create a society that can function. lose your morals and nothing has any consequences and nothing means anything anymore. just like your example about harm being the only driving force in morality.
so your definition of morality now hinges on harm. ok LOL
i really dont know alot about working on the sabbath and all that entailed. and you may be right. morality changes with culture. it is not right but it happens. same thing with looking at porn, it desensitized you. like blood and gore in a movie or grand theft auto. but that does not mean that it is right. there are reasons we had/have morals. they create a society that can function. lose your morals and nothing has any consequences and nothing means anything anymore. just like your example about harm being the only driving force in morality.
#22272 to #22271
-
Ruspanic ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] Okay, perhaps the best argument I have heard against gay civil marriage (though I've somewhat refuted in an earlier comment) is that government-sanctioned marriage is a public policy tool to encourage reproduction and stable families. Since gay people cannot naturally reproduce and don't usually opt to have or adopt children, and since many children with gay parents are stigmatized, the government does not have reason to extend legal benefits to same-sex unions.
Other people more collectivist than me will argue that upholding traditions is necessary to preserve social order and stability, that the erosion of long-held traditions destabilizes society and weakens the state. It's justified to sacrifice some individual freedoms for the good of the whole. Also, because same-sex couples can still cohabitate and have relationships and sex legally, they're not technically being denied any rights - just legal benefits that they're not necessarily entitled to.
It's true that people who make these arguments are often religious and/or homophobic, but that doesn't mean all arguments they make are necessarily so.
Other people more collectivist than me will argue that upholding traditions is necessary to preserve social order and stability, that the erosion of long-held traditions destabilizes society and weakens the state. It's justified to sacrifice some individual freedoms for the good of the whole. Also, because same-sex couples can still cohabitate and have relationships and sex legally, they're not technically being denied any rights - just legal benefits that they're not necessarily entitled to.
It's true that people who make these arguments are often religious and/or homophobic, but that doesn't mean all arguments they make are necessarily so.
#22281 to #22272
-
pebar ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] Encouraging reproduction has never been an issue; humans love sex. Marriage is encouraged because it says the father can't just leave, like every other species. When two people stick together to raise a family, it's easier (efficient for the species is a different issue). At least that's how it used to be.
IMO, nowadays it's all about trust issues. Getting married makes it so your lover can't just wake up one morning, decides she wants something different in her life, and walk out the door. Divorce rates are around 50%; it's hardly a "holy bond" anymore. If gays want to get married, why not? It's not like marriage would become more corrupted than it already is.
Besides, the US was founded on the idea that people from around the world could live together in peace no matter what you believed. It's like a haven. If homosexuality is frowned upon, it's pretty much against that philosophy.
IMO, nowadays it's all about trust issues. Getting married makes it so your lover can't just wake up one morning, decides she wants something different in her life, and walk out the door. Divorce rates are around 50%; it's hardly a "holy bond" anymore. If gays want to get married, why not? It's not like marriage would become more corrupted than it already is.
Besides, the US was founded on the idea that people from around the world could live together in peace no matter what you believed. It's like a haven. If homosexuality is frowned upon, it's pretty much against that philosophy.
#22275 to #22274
-
kanade ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] Because while it is encouraged to create a family/reproduce it isn't forced. People that have no intentions to have children/are unable to birth children due to a defect can still marry.
If it's not forced and these people are allowed to marry then there is no excuse not to allow homosexuals either, other than to be a homophobe.
The second one (tradition argument) is even more homophobic because it claims that giving gay people rights degrades society.
If it's not forced and these people are allowed to marry then there is no excuse not to allow homosexuals either, other than to be a homophobe.
The second one (tradition argument) is even more homophobic because it claims that giving gay people rights degrades society.
#22282 to #22275
-
Ruspanic ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] The other thing I forgot to mention is this issue of rights. First of all, natural rights cannot be given, because they're inherent. Legal marriage is not a natural right because it's a legal construct that doesn't exist in nature. It's a legal right (which can be given), but legal rights are whatever the law says they are and granting more of them to more people is not always a good thing. Maybe in this case, but not always.
I would say that giving some legal rights to some people would degrade society - a right to own slaves, for instance.
I would say that giving some legal rights to some people would degrade society - a right to own slaves, for instance.
#22280 to #22275
-
Ruspanic ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] 1. Yes- that's the same counterargument I made below - but some people are still denied marriage licences in the interest of any children they might have. For instance, some states require(d) STD blood tests before issuing marriage licenses, and sometimes the issuance is left to the discretion of the judge. Of course reproduction isn't forced, but as the argument goes, offering legal benefits and recognition to marriage, a union that already existed but was not always legally-sanctioned, is a means of encouragement but not coercion. Think of it as an incentive, a carrot but not a stick. And because it is an incentive, there's no need to offer it to everyone. Many people don't know if they're infertile when they marry or change their mind about children during their marriage, whereas gay couples can never conceive naturally.
Not an argument I buy, but the reasoning is not terrible. Or inherently homophobic.
2. Though that might be the implication of the second argument, that's because of the broader premise that erosion of traditions (such as the traditional definition of marriage) erodes societal unity. I don't like this argument, but it's a common one: if half the people in a country had one set of traditions and the other half had another set, the country would be less united and less stable than if everyone observed the same traditions.
The argument may be fallacious or invalid, and you're right to call that out, but that doesn't make it inherently homophobic.
Anyway, this is all a bit of a tangent. My original point was that calling people "homophobic religitards" simply for opposing gay marriage can only be counterproductive. Better to refute their arguments, or say nothing.
Not an argument I buy, but the reasoning is not terrible. Or inherently homophobic.
2. Though that might be the implication of the second argument, that's because of the broader premise that erosion of traditions (such as the traditional definition of marriage) erodes societal unity. I don't like this argument, but it's a common one: if half the people in a country had one set of traditions and the other half had another set, the country would be less united and less stable than if everyone observed the same traditions.
The argument may be fallacious or invalid, and you're right to call that out, but that doesn't make it inherently homophobic.
Anyway, this is all a bit of a tangent. My original point was that calling people "homophobic religitards" simply for opposing gay marriage can only be counterproductive. Better to refute their arguments, or say nothing.
#22257 to #22196
-
Ruspanic ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] Yes.
I don't really give a shit if churches allow them to marry, but as long as there is legally-sanctioned marriage (i.e. civil marriage) it should be accessible to adult same-sex couples. gay couples may not be able to procreate naturally with each other, but they are still capable of adoption or having kids via artificial insemination. If the purpose of legally sanctioned marriage is to encourage stable families for raising children, it seems inconsistent to exclude committed gay couples while including infertile and childless couples.
There's also the issue of joint ownership of property, hospital visitation rights, etc - any couple committed enough to get married (certain celebrities notwithstanding) should have those benefits available to them.
I don't buy the tradition argument because I feel the government has no duty to enforce tradition and that traditions should not be imposed on people who don't wish to abide by them. And no, Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage and does not get to dictate the terms of everyone's marriage.
I don't really give a shit if churches allow them to marry, but as long as there is legally-sanctioned marriage (i.e. civil marriage) it should be accessible to adult same-sex couples. gay couples may not be able to procreate naturally with each other, but they are still capable of adoption or having kids via artificial insemination. If the purpose of legally sanctioned marriage is to encourage stable families for raising children, it seems inconsistent to exclude committed gay couples while including infertile and childless couples.
There's also the issue of joint ownership of property, hospital visitation rights, etc - any couple committed enough to get married (certain celebrities notwithstanding) should have those benefits available to them.
I don't buy the tradition argument because I feel the government has no duty to enforce tradition and that traditions should not be imposed on people who don't wish to abide by them. And no, Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage and does not get to dictate the terms of everyone's marriage.
#22205 to #22196
-
coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-] no, not with the current relationship with marriage and the state. marriage should have never been made part of the state. it is a religious ideal that has meaning and purpose in that concept. you can not have gay marriage in religion. there are many examples in the bible against homosexuality and it should remain that way in the church. but marriage is not a homosexual concept. it has and will always be defined as a man and a woman joined in union together.
#22207 to #22205
-
thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-] Actually, you're wrong. You're assuming that the only religion is Christianity. There are thousands of other religions, and these religions also have marriage. Cultures throughout time have had accepted homosexual relationships and marriages.
#22217 to #22212
-
coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-] 3: incorrect search "Navajos Override gay-Marriage Ban Veto" doesnt seem like they want to be fags all that bad
4: incorrect "Oral and anal sex, sadomasochism, and coitus interrupts are not sexual practices of the Dobe Ju/hoansi. Lesbians and gays can be found within this society; however, this is not common."
i didnt really look into the first two because your last two points are both false LOL
but im sure that they are jsut more iterations of the same thing. a culture that in the past has never supported gay rights but now that they have assimilated with modern culture are being pressed to do so. (just like the christian instituion of marriage!)
have a nice day
4: incorrect "Oral and anal sex, sadomasochism, and coitus interrupts are not sexual practices of the Dobe Ju/hoansi. Lesbians and gays can be found within this society; however, this is not common."
i didnt really look into the first two because your last two points are both false LOL
but im sure that they are jsut more iterations of the same thing. a culture that in the past has never supported gay rights but now that they have assimilated with modern culture are being pressed to do so. (just like the christian instituion of marriage!)
have a nice day
#22221 to #22217
-
thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-] The source I had (A Cultural Anthropology textbook) was where I got the information about the Ju'/hoansi.
And with the Navajo, I meant the religion, not the current tribe politics.
I can see that, because you don't want to search into any of my other sources, that you are either a troll, or you just wish to stay ignorant.
And with the Navajo, I meant the religion, not the current tribe politics.
I can see that, because you don't want to search into any of my other sources, that you are either a troll, or you just wish to stay ignorant.
#22227 to #22221
-
coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-] believe every thing you read/hear? (it's ok, it's not just you) LOL
and i think that politics are simply a tangible express of beliefs so..........
why waste time on more false allegations? the half i did research are incorrect. (i sensed a pattern LOL)
and i think that politics are simply a tangible express of beliefs so..........
why waste time on more false allegations? the half i did research are incorrect. (i sensed a pattern LOL)
#22229 to #22227
-
thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-] A college textbook is more reliable than an internet article, in my opinion.
No, they are not the same as the beliefs. The religion differs from the tribe. It's like saying the American government acts with Christianity in mind.
You searched two out of five. That isn't half.
No, they are not the same as the beliefs. The religion differs from the tribe. It's like saying the American government acts with Christianity in mind.
You searched two out of five. That isn't half.
#22248 to #22229
-
coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-] you numbered 4. half of 4 is two.
and i would not agree with you on the college textbook thing .....especially if it is a anthropology textbook (extreme bias in the college/university atmosphere)
and people vote on their beliefs. i hope they do at least.
and i would not agree with you on the college textbook thing .....especially if it is a anthropology textbook (extreme bias in the college/university atmosphere)
and people vote on their beliefs. i hope they do at least.
#22193
-
paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-] I hate talking about the gun issue but I have done some research about where most gun accidents happen. Most of it happens when so-called "law abiding citizens" get pissed of decides to use their gun because of they had an argument with someone and it went out of control. I am just happy to say that this is a well-researched fact now that this is where most of it happens it’s not gang violence or violent crimes the is the most common reason behind most deaths or injuries of guns.
#22395 to #22193
-
finni (01/29/2013) [-] I don't agree with you, but I thumb you up because I don't think it's right to thumb you down unless you go all trolling and shit like if you say "YOU GUYS ARE SUPER DUMB AND CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF! GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED YOUR FUCKING RETARDS" that kind of stuff. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you should be thumbed down, especially not in this place.
It's not fun to be here if everybody agrees. Having people who disagree makes for debates and that's the point of this thread.
It's not fun to be here if everybody agrees. Having people who disagree makes for debates and that's the point of this thread.
#22279 to #22194
-
pebar ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-] People use a gun for suicide because it's the most effect tool to get it done quick and painlessly. If a person truly wants to die, there are many other ways.
And if a person wants to die, don't they have the right to chose the fate of their own life? IMO they do, which is why I wouldn't include suicide by gun in any gun violence statistic.
And if a person wants to die, don't they have the right to chose the fate of their own life? IMO they do, which is why I wouldn't include suicide by gun in any gun violence statistic.
#22198 to #22194
-
paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-] japan has a higher suicide rate than the US
so that argument is invalid. if you going to do it, you'll find a way.
i'd also like to see the stats that back up your first claim
gun accidents are less common than slipping in the bathtub.
so that argument is invalid. if you going to do it, you'll find a way.
i'd also like to see the stats that back up your first claim
gun accidents are less common than slipping in the bathtub.
#22286 to #22226
-
paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-] no, that is an opinion piece.
nothing worth anything.
here is a video for you
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg&feature=player_embedded
nothing worth anything.
here is a video for you
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg&feature=player_embedded
#22220 to #22198
-
paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-] www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/
ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf
[url deleted]
watch this from 50:00
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/08/doctor-guns.html
[url deleted]
ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf
[url deleted]
watch this from 50:00
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/08/doctor-guns.html
[url deleted]
