Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 831 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 92% |
Arguments: | 666 |
Debates: | 43 |
Obviously I would swish it around and sing songs like:
I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH
I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH
I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH
I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH
And whip it around to smack JoeCavalry when he's being an idiot. Which means it would get a LOT of use.
Obviously the demonstrators who are reacting violently are the ones centrally at fault. But the idiot in Florida certainly instigated it, and unapologetically at that.
I'm opposed to book burning in general, and doing so to incite violence and instigate a reaction is beyond wicked. The fact that a preacher knowingly did so makes it even worse. Especially considering that Islam and Christianity are so intertwined and overlapped. It's like he burned part of the Bible too!
It would be like a man saying, "If you give me the middle finger, I'll have no choice but to open fire" and the other giving him the middle finger anyway. Of course the man with the gun is AT FAULT, but the other one isn't completely innocent either.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
It's quite odd to me that you waste so much time on a debate forum when you clearly either cannot debate or choose not to.
And your use of the ;) makes me cringe.
I say no because cin my experience clothing isn't very good armor.
...
I don't think Hitler was ever separated from the human race. Until he killed himself, that is.... So...good luck subduing and separating all the atheists.
Religion starts wars, atheism only correlates with them. So if we're banning things in the name of peace, let's start there.
My point is that the "traditional" has no place here. Regardless of how non-traditional a family, or perhaps commune may be, if it provides the same support structure as a traditional family, why shouldn't it incur the same privileges?
First of all, we are overpopulated as it is. So there's no real need to promote reproduction at this point in time. We've got more than we need.
And secondly, what exactly are the "problems" that arise from sex outside of marriage? I'll predict your answers will be 1-STD's, and 2-babies out of wedlock, but correct me if I'm wrong. As for 1-it is solved by the use of condoms, and 2-it can also be prevented through condoms and when added to a birth control pill, it is almost 100% foolproof.
I think your simplistic reduction of what the family is to society is incorrect. Families are a support structure, not just replacement reproduction. And they are of value for far more than their sexual protections.
Or rather, why does the government feel it ok to promote marriage by giving certain married couples benefits? Since not all couples are eligible to marry and receive these benefits, this is patently unfair. And the benefits are all economic incentives. Paying people off to be in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Kind of weird. I just don't see the connection as to why marriage benefits our country.
But, in total, yes, the government should promote positive behavior. It's far better than enacting laws to require the behaviors. If we want people to drink and smoke less, than we should tax alcohol and tobacco more.
Let's start with my most unwanted internet chum, joecavalry. I find his remarks to be unwanted, his inability to accept facts inconvenient (especially given his ability to vote).
|