- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I think there is a vast difference between an immigrant and an illegal immigrant.
Illegal means, contrary to, or forbidden by law.
Therefore, illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals.
The same criminals which the Lord Mayor of New York has vowed to support and help to remain elusive to the duly appointed law enforcement officers.
America consists of immigrants and the descendents of immigrants .
People like Mrs, Trump, who submitted themselves to the nation's immigration regulations and procedures for consideration.
Not the illegal criminals who do not, and indeed cannot pay their just and lawful taxes as they must work anonymously in the black economy.
It's frightening that the Lord Mayor of the United States of America is giving succour to criminals.
You omitted one vital component of your incendiary list, that is a means by which to ignite the tinder.
I would say that eight years of political inertia combined with the disillusionment and arrogant disregard of America's overlooked white working classes was what torched the kindling.
The liberal elite seemed obsessed with concerns about America's downtrodden blacks, the innocent, law abiding and misunderstood Mexicans along with those of a deviant sexual orientation.
The Trump and Brexit victories are indications that the apathetic unheard sections of the western democracies have at last woken up and smelled what it is the 'progressives' have been shoveling.
I agree, a vote for Trump was a vote for the Lord God almighty himself.
Trump has been groomed by God to be a modern day disciple to further the Christian values on earth and to confront the forces of evil as represented by the demonic forces who worship false gods and the barbarity of their faiths.
May God continue to give him the endurance and strength he will need to complete his mammoth task of ridding the world of those who are doing the devil's work.
Hallelujah, sister, hallelujah may God be praised.
The reference to the Holocaust was used exclusively to illustrate the bond between the mother and her child.
There undoubtedly are instances in nature when the off spring of certain species are raised collectively, but in the vast majority of cases they are brought up within a family group with the mother taking the main responsibility for the infant.
Try taking a lion or bear cub from their mother and see how quickly you would become mincemeat.
Even appear menacing towards the calf of a domesticated cow and it will attack you, as was the cause of two deaths in Northern Ireland within the past two weeks.
Many people labour under the misapprehension that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys/apes.
Evolution teaches us that human primates and nonhuman primates such as monkeys and chimpanzee's diverged from a common ancestor between 6 and 10 million years ago.
Although there is only a small difference between the D.N.A. of a human and a chimpanzee, I think as little as 1 or 2 %, I don't consider myself to have any ''monkey cousins''.
The are the ruthless rich and powerful and the intelligent rich and powerful.
The latter 'exploit' the lower orders and manipulate them so they behave in a manner which promotes the well being of their superior masters.
Don Quixote was used as an analogy to Ayn Rand as they both are academics with outlandish and fanciful notions.
In the case of Quixote he attacked windmills in the misguided notion that they were giants and Rand's equally ridiculous fantasy that children could, or should be separated and reared away from their natural parents.
Anyway, I think we've exhausted this line of discussion so I'll sign off here and wish you good luck.
It wasn't a case of not watching the video, more that I was unable to log on to it.
I've just tried again, without success.
However, please note that I did respond to your thread as best as I could, as I usually do.
If you would prefer I didn't reply to your future posts please advise me and I'll accommodate your request.
Your proposals and references to Ayn Rand's works are indeed genuinely most interesting, but to my mind complicates what is quite a simple subject, let nature run it's course as intended and the outcome will be the best possible.
Throughout history mankind has always been a territorial/tribal animal and the concept of collectively raising children without their natural parents is really no more than a cruel fanciful notion.
Did you ever witness Jewish mothers trying to cling to their babies and children while the German guards beat them off by smashing their skulls with their rifle butts?
To deny children the love of their parents, the sort of love only parents can give would be inhuman.
To deny the parents the joy of rearing their family and guiding them through their vulnerable years would be a horrific thought, especially for the dubious purpose of satisfying the curiosity of some Don Quixote type academic.
People's territorial instincts can be observed in the unlikely settings of large offices.
For quite some time psychologists have argued that large open spaces with everyone, including managers all in the one zone without walled divisions would be conducive to promoting a team spirit and a more harmonious working environment.
Did it, do I hear you asking? Did it hell.
As soon as this ''experiment'' started people immediately began positioning filing cabinets and large plants around their desks in an effort of marking out their territory and in the process providing them with a degree of privacy.
The only way is nature's way.
I'm certainly not advocating killing anyone, or anything absolutely not. All I'm suggesting is let individuals and nations be left to their own devices to either sink or swim.
No helping hands, nature must rule supreme.
Thanks for your explanatory response.
I interpreted your initial remarks to be in agreement with my opinion on evolution and then felt you changed tack and became hostile towards my slant on the issue with comments tinged with a certain aloofness.
However, and with all due respect I feel I have made my position clear and therefore do not consider that there is any necessity for further clarification.
But, by way of exemplifying the thrust of my argument I would refer to the recent hurricanes in Haiti when the flimsy constructions were blown into the upper stratosphere, an occurrence which has been taking place once or twice each year for decades. Of course the Haitians immediately replaced their homes with constructions of corrugated iron and cardboard held together with chewing gum and elastic bands.
Were any lessons learned about the unsuitability of such buildings from their most recent traumatic experience as well as all the previous ones?;- naw, that would have involved thinking and holding reasoned debates about how best to prepare for the inevitability of future natural catastrophes .
Do these people, and those from similar backgrounds prepare for future hurricanes by establishing emergency stores of food, shelter and medical supplies ?;- naw, let the U.N. and the Yanks do that.
Would such people still exist if it wasn't for them being kept alive artificially?
I don't think so.
Actually, that's exactly what I am saying, whilst trying to be as politically correct as I can with such a realistically harsh message, and I make no apology whatsoever for doing so.
Every now and then some people will hit hard times and the strong and capable will provide a temporary safety net for such occurrences.
However, those people who, perhaps through geographical isolation or religious dogma, have missed out on the distribution of superior genes will need to be fed and cared for indefinitely.
We can witness this ''inferiority'' in numerous countries where the inhabitants require to be provided with food, shelter and medical care for generation after generation.
They never learn from their experiences of disasters nor are they capable of reasoning and understanding the world in which they live and what makes it tick, and they never will.
The learning process and survival instincts can be observed in animals such as the lowly wildebeest as they cross great distances to reach the rich grazing lands which they need for survival.
Many of the lower orders of mankind cannot even make this fundamental observation that radical decisions, such as moving on will be necessary to survive.
They have come to expect handouts as their God given right and become indignant if the bounty which is being provided by the hardworking ''superior'' taxpayers of the world is, in their opinion, too slow in coming.
They should be left to perish so the earth's finite resources can be utilized to support the proliferation of superior humankind just as nature intended.
Your idea of evolution is, through ignorance and your inability to interpret the available information correctly, completely cockeyed.
It is difficult to dispel deep seated ignorance in one fell swoop, but do try to read and comprehend what most people already know about evolution.
Evolution is the process of natural selection.
More individuals are produced each generation that can survive.
Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
Those individuals with traits better suited to the environment in which they live will survive.
The evolutionary process of elimination of the weak, less suited to survive in a changing world, either physically or intellectually, is played out over millions of years. Just as neanderthal man was replaced by modern humankind.
In the animal world subtle changes occur within all species and those where the evolutionary ''modifications'' are superior to the original design will, in the fullness of time reign supreme.
In mankind it is the intelligent, talented and capable who are at the top ''food chain'', figuratively speaking.
In time the genetically superior humans will become dominant and eventually completely replace the lower orders, again as was the case of the slower thinking less able neanderthal man was eclipsed by modern humankind.
Today we see those intelligent, forward thinking people at the top of the tree enjoying what appears to the intellectually challenged, an unfair and privileged lifestyle.
Whilst these ''superior'' people command their lofty positions within the 'pecking order'' of life they will also have had the foresight to make provision for their twilight years and have contingencies in place for the eventuality of any unforeseen disasters.
As a result of their prudence they will be able to draw on sufficient funds in their senior years to ensure that those on the lower rungs of the ladder work slavishly to keep them in the manner to which they have, through merit and their ''natural'' superiority , become accustomed.
Feeding the lower orders who are incapable of providing for themselves is a costly and futile exercise.
Keeping any species alive artificially is flouting one of nature's fundamental laws, ''survival of the fittest''.
Nature's''natural selection'' is why the vast array of species have evolved into their present day successful state.
The weak and incapable are meant to become extinct so that the earth's finite resources can continue to support the evolution of the superior classes.
Government's don't keep the useless layabouts alive, the successful, hard working taxpayers do.
Very true. That sound advice of course includes human beings such as the hapless African Bongos, the equally hapless Haitians and the so called Muslim refugees who head towards Europe in endless droves reminiscent the great herds of wildebeest sweeping across the Serengeti planes as they migrate in search of the lush grazing pastures.
If gnus can look after themselves, how come Bongos and Muslims rely on Europe and white Americans?
They're too clever, too hard working and too self reliant.
Like China is doing now, they adopted the west's manufacturing and marketing techniques and beat us, temporarily, at our own game.
Fortunately we are more innovative and with people like Bill Gates around we can stay ahead of the posse'.
When things settle down and a level playing field is established, WE'LL BE BACK''.
Such irrational zealots have been brainwashed many years ago and regardless of what reasoned counter argument you present they will simply quote the fanciful notions of the well meaning academics of their day who tried in their state of ignorance to explain the mysteries of the universe in a 2000 year old book called the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever.
Let's take a close look at the Biblical account of the beginning of earth and mankind.
One day when God was zooming around the Cosmos he thought, I must build another world. I mean I only have a trillion zillion at the moment.
So wallop, bang, zap and behold the world exists.
Then he decides he would like a nice garden with pretty flowers and fragrant foliage. Kapow, the garden is there.
While twiddling his thumbs one wet afternoon he come up with the idea of making a man, maybe just out of boredom.
Yes, you're correct, along came Adam.
Adam appeared in the garden around 40 years of age.
He didn't wonder, what the hell am I doing here?
From where did I come?
No he just wandered happily and contentedly eating the lush fruit and enjoying the sunshine.
God noticed Adam's state of contentment and thought, emm, I'll soon put an end to this.
Yep, you got it again, he sneaked down one night under cover of darkness and stole one of Adam's ribs from which he made Eve, the first woman.
Like Adam, Eve didn't ask where she came from, nor did Adam seem slightly curious who the hell this strange person with two pointy things on their chest and no penis or testicles was.
God then visited Eve and told her she could eat from the fruit of any tree she wanted except for one, the apple tree which he, very foolishly pointed out to her.
When God sped off for a quick burn up around the universe a snake appeared and told Eve it was okay to eat the fruit from the apple tree.
As soon as she did she became ashamed of certain parts of her anatomy, very peculiar.
Now, I don't know about you but when I see a snake I back off, if it starts talking to me I crap myself whilst running a 100 M.P.H.
This is the book upon which people swear in a court of law to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
I rest my case.
He didn't quite say that, he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the full illegality of her criminal negligence and willful destroying evidence of the crime.
I guess that's would be her going to jail, just the same as we all would had we been caught as she was.
Her treatment along with the absence of any prosecution epitomizes the old adage;- it's not what you know, it's who you know.
Most of these children will grow up resenting all those involved in their brainwashing.
Such psychologically disturbing indoctrination of minors before they can make a reasoned and mature assessment of all the religious hocus pocus should be made a criminal offence.
Actually on a second viewing of the tape I'm quite sure ''the shadow'' is really the blurred image of a second person, probably the pillion passenger, ( a British term ) who is comforted by one of the uniformed men who puts his arm around his/her shoulder.
Boringly, there's always a scientific explanation for most cases of apparent paranormal phenomena.