Debate Thread

I do have a problem with people using nigger to mean shitty person. There are a hundred different ways to call someone a shitty person that aren't racial slurs. "Asshole" "Fuckface" "Shitlicker" "Dickweed" to name a few.

I don't use it, because I just prefer to call them shitty.

But it's what everyone does where Im from. I mean, you'll get hilarious situations where a black guy would be calling an Asain guy a nigger.

People where I currently live, and where top hat is referring to, are extremely racist. And I hang out wih a lot of rednecks, so I witness most of the racism. My boyfriend isn't racist, but his bestfriend is. I hate the word "nigger" and think it should die in a hole. And when my boyfriends best friend called someone a nigger for a stupid reason, mainly just simply because he is racist, he got hit very very hard by me. I think racism is totally rude an uncalled for. We are all just people. No matter what our skin color is.

Except the French.


They're just surrender monkeys.

....zakk, you do realize I'm half French. Right?

Yes.

...buttmunch

FINALLY!

FINALLY I CAN USE THIS VIDEO!

YES!

Omg! I forgot lol

Lol that is perfect!!!

You know what kids aren't getting enough of now-a-days? Smacks.

Really, we should smack children more. Right upside the head.

I don't know if I could smack a kid. I'd probably just sit down and talk to it sternly and twenty years it would grow up to be a drug dealer, to my dismay.

I was never hit (Well, not usually, anyway) but I didn't grow up in a normal enviroment, either.

If I ever have a kid, Im going to home school them, and talk to them like an adult. If they don't understand something, I'll explain it.

But most kids? They just need to get the shit slapped out of them every once and a while. This couple moved in next door to my old house. The wife was a Canadian School techer, and the father was also a school teacher from.... Almost Canada. (One of those northern states.)

Anyway, they were both terrible parents. Those kids, literally, screamed from about 7AM to 8PM. Every. Single. Fucking. Day.

You know why? Because their parents did fuck-all to raise them.


You know what would have made those kids behave? Slapping them until they shut up.

Actually, I take the same approach with dogs. People are like, "Oh gosh! You hit your dog! That's so abusive!"

No. You can't calmly explain to your dog to drop your grandmother's priceless blanket.

No, you smack that thing on the snout and yell at it.

New debate!

Basically, my brother is an Objectivist. A huge Objectivist.

Basically, he and my mother were having a debate that eventually was over the bettering of humanity. My brother believes that we as a species could reach our potential so much faster if we were less focused on things that he believes are slowing progress, like fundamentalism, pop culture, and, most notably, welfare and charity.

He says that we could basically make ourselves virtually immortal sometime in the near future with the aid of stem cell research, but in order to further that goal, many resources would have to be put into it, and since the basic rule of economics is that resources are limited, that would mean diverting resources from other things, again, like welfare and charity's.
He believes that those who are poor can work hard to try and change their situation, but if they can't, then that most likely means that they are not motivated enough, but even if they really can't change their situation by themselves, no matter how hard they try, then that still doesn't mean we should use resources on them.

He says, as did I, that if we made a difficult decision like that, then we would have less difficult decisions to make in the future.

While my mother agrees that doing something like that would greatly advance human progress, she thinks that not trying to help out those who need help would mean forgoing compassion, and compassion is one of the things that makes humans unique as a species. She says that it isn't worth it to let helpless people die in the name of progress.

Please note that my brother does not believe that the poor should all be killed, but at the same time, he thinks that if they can't contribute to society, even if they really want to, then society shouldn't contribute any resources to them.

I personally believe that my brother is right, and believe that his plan may just be what the world needs, but I, as an individual, am too compassionate to actually be able to help further this goal. I still think, however, that my brother's plan, while it disregards compassion, does not do so forever, as eventually, things would work out, the system would stabilize to the intense modifications, and then we could bring back compassion in large scale, but until then, we need to work more on progress, so that in the long-run, we better our situation here on Earth.

This is really a terse version of their debate, so I wasn't able to fit in as many details as I would like to, but basically, my question is,
How much would you be willing to disregard compassion if it meant making huge strides for the human race?

Well, I'd like to say that Im a compassionate person, and would fight for everyone's right to live...

But, if it came to it, I think Im not. If I had to kill half the human population to save the the planet, I think I would do it. (That's an extreme example, of course.)

I think I also agree with your brother. But we could probably take resources from something else, first.

Nah, couldn't do it, personally.
I'm a "no man gets left behind" kind of dude.
It's easy to say on paper "I'd kill 200 people to save 200000 people" but that's because the figures are clear as day and the option of doing nothing kills more. If the situation ever arose I doubt the supervillain with the bombs would give you such a clear choice and, really, cutting off welfare is in a completely different ballpark.

Where would it end if we cut off welfare?

he thinks that if they can't contribute to society, even if they really want to, then society shouldn't contribute any resources to them.

As a utilitarian, I don't see a problem with this opinion, but, as a human being, I think that's horrible. Disabled and impaired care neglected? Cut completely? Disabled children would be condemned to death from birth. Aged care? What happens if a hard worker gets their arms cut off by someone with a grudge or he's crippled in a car accident? Is he now abandoned by the system he worked for? What gives any one person the right to decide when another's time has come?

if we were less focused on things that he believes are slowing progress, like ... pop culture

Pop culture? Really? Even if I think it's stupid that doesn't mean it should be abolished, if it makes others happy. We don't need less freedom in our lives. The problem of hindering scientific growth isn't with society or with things like welfare and charity, it's the greed right at the top with the government. I'm sure if they weren't all funneling money into the military and secret projects and bribes and taking the rest for themselves we'd be at a level of growth that would make you happy. Have you seen the figures for how much the U.S. shits into the military?

Also, I don't want to live on a planet where people are immortal. We've got unsustainable population growth as it is, when we have the technology to make people immortal I dread to think what would happen.

Your mum sounds like a top chick, I agree with you've said is her opinion, pretty much.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of an over-population problem, myself.

I do agree that no one should be able to choose when another dies, but.... Life doesn't work like that.

Well, his plan for immortality was to give people a choice. Either you could be immortal and sterile, or mortal and capable of reproducing. He feels that people who have to dedicate time to family won't be able to truly impact the world, so why let them live forever?

Dewmann wrote:Well, his plan for immortality was to give people a choice. Either you could be immortal and sterile, or mortal and capable of reproducing. He feels that people who have to dedicate time to family won't be able to truly impact the world, so why let them live forever?

Your brother.... He kind of sounds like a moron.

All ideas are relative and are no worse than any other, but he sounds really heavy on the Ayn Rand.
Is he into any other philosophers, Dew? I can't say I've ever heard of anyone who took Objectivism seriously.

semicolon wrote:All ideas are relative and are no worse than any other, but he sounds really heavy on the Ayn Rand.
Is he into any other philosophers, Dew? I can't say I've ever heard of anyone who took Objectivism seriously.

Now, Im not talking about this specific case or anything, but that is totally false.

Come up with a specific case, then.

semicolon wrote:Come up with a specific case, then.

"We should try to fly by jumping off of a cliff and flapping our arms"

Is a worse idea than:

"We should not jump off of cliffs."

Oh, I meant in terms of ethics, but okay, you can have that one.