- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
No imperfect human being deserves the power to view a difference of opinion/belief as a mental disorder/illness. Paradigm shifts lead to drastic fundamental world views (yes there are many shifts waiting for us) and people engaging in the above narcissistic viewpoint can only say "ooops, sorry we killed your family brah, my bad hahahah" when said shifts occur.
We'll I've seen all the l.o.k episodes so far and have watched the full avatar show several times over. In my opinion the first outweighs the second in every regard except animation (but that isn't a credential, it should be that way regardless).
-The second show plays heavily to Korra's sexual development in terms of drama surrounding "boys" she may or may not be attracted to (much more than Avatar that focused on story development regarding the four nations and Aang's bending training [with a side-story involving Aang's affections for Katara]). In the new show (so far anyway), Korra's affections dominate the show (only the first episode was spared the "drama" and it may have been introduced at the end actually...)
-The first show involved several characters as protagonists (starting the show with Sokka and his sister Katara) and lending time to even the antagonist Zuko who develops into more of an anti-hero as the show progresses, whereas the second show focuses solely on Korra and her development. The antagonist (so far) is flat ensuring that Korra will be the main focus of this show hence her adventures with boys and bending will be at the forefront until new characters are introduced (if ever).
-The comedic value of the first show was apparent from the first few seconds to the very end, calling upon several (Aang, Sokka, Toph, Zuko, Iro, Katara, Appa and the list goes on) characters, whereas the second show relies heavily on one character (goofy dude that likes Korra [don't know his name]) and even more numbingly on "awkward" exchanges between members of this love traigle comprising Korra and two "pro-bending" brothers (goofy dude that likes Korra and his brother that acts as though he doesn't). The one saving grace that keeps my hope alive is that this show retains the first's writers, potentially building the show into something as amazing as the first. One scene made me lol in the second show (first episode) when a little airbender was gnawing on his grandfathers head as they landed an air bison - whereas I found myself at least chukling on a semi-regular basis with the first.
More to come if necessary, and I welcome a critique from someone favoring the second.
I can't say I'm too interested, I might have a peek later (spending all my time trying to unphotogenicise myself lol, I'm even trying the preppy combover look). I know for sure you went overboard but that doesn't mean it wasn't funny. Dude I held my own in the kiddie porn debate, I have a darker sense of humor than most would tolerate. That's why I found your knocked over chair so funny.
I suspected :) but since I wasn't positive (that haiti comment while funny, was retardedly evil) I responded as if you were serious. The fact is I attacked the persona you were portraying whether it fits with you or not. I started going through your recent posts, and it seems that you've become quite the shit disturber. Keep it up ;)
Joe I'm surprised, for some reason I didn't think you were that sort of person. What he means is non-white muslims. Muslim is a faith, not a people, so naturally he should be including a small portion of white people in there which people like him and you, never do. When you think muslim or terrorist, you obviously picture rags and such, but put yourself in the "terrorist's" shoes. If you have white people as part of your 'merica hating religion, you'd use them to hijack planes because no one pictures terrorists as white. Even in your example "terrorist looking guy" implies dark because if white people looked like terrorists then everyone would look like one. Since that black dude "attempted to bomb" that plane, do you consider all black people potential terrorists? Just the muslim ones? There's something outrageous like half a billion muslims in the world. Compared to the what...100, 500 terrorists involved in u.s. bombing. Whats that percentage? That's like considering all white people racist nazi douchebags. Except there's a higher percentage of racist white people than "terrorists" muslims. Therefore if would be more logical to assume that you're a racist nazi douchebag than any random muslim is a terrorist.
On to your question. What you mean to say is "racial profiling who's time has come to be enforced by law in the open". You yourself have committed racial profiling in your argument. People are already guilty of racial profiling. They do it to all races all the time. There is nowhere in America that an old white lady would be stopped and a dark dude in a turban and acid eating his balls would be free to walk through. She would need the word "infidels" tatooed on her forehead and he would need to be a foreign diplomat. The degree of racism in the u.s. is beyond reason. To the point that a politician can get away with "all terrorists are muslim" and no one seems to apply the logic I outlined above to it. Guess what, all terrorists are human. All nazis are white. Hitler was white, Ghandi was not. The us military is only marginally not white. Most of them are suspected nazis using the above logic.