Debate2 - The undeletable's Journal (original) (raw)
Debate2 - The undeletable's Journal [Most Recent Entries][Calendar View] [Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded inDebate2 - The undeletable's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Sunday, November 30th, 2008 | |
|---|---|
| _9:21 am_[fire_trucks] |
Religious Singing and Dancing Found this on Staretube.For debate: now that you know Christians can dance, does that make you want to convert? (Comment on this) |
| Friday, December 1st, 2006 | |
| _10:58 pm_[vnsplshr] |
Defend the Weed Challenge:Defend weed. Give your best reasons for recreational use of pot, and why it might be fine to legalize.Do not......mention possible medicinal benefits ...bring up the negative aspects of anti-pot laws...compare or contrast pot's benefits or harms with booze or other recreational chemicals...quote names of famous folks who use(d) pot...include references to the addictive qualities (or lack thereof) of pot...refer to the use of pot for religious purposes...list the myriad uses for hempJust explain the plus side for users and society, if smoking pot became legal tomorrow. What's your sales pitch?Note: I was once told that this framing is "unfair", and that to have a true discussion, all aspects must be allowed. I disagree. If it helps, pretend you wrote a long paper defending pot, but you left most of the pages on the bus. (38 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Saturday, June 3rd, 2006 | |
| _4:14 pm_[malfunctionzero] |
Censorship One thing that I've always wondered about is why some things are apparently so bad that they need to be censored even on a completely "uncensored" CD that you purchase in a store. CDs which contain swearing come in 2 versions: Clean, and Parental Advisory. No more, no less. If you buy the clean version, swearing is blanked out or replaced. If you buy the Explicit version, swearing is present. However, even on Explicit CDs, there are apparently things that are so controvercial that they can never be released to the public. This bothers me because when you pay full price for a cd, you expect to get the artist's work. Their complete work. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings either, but I don't want my artists censored. Below are three examples from various Eminem songs. And yes, these are from the FULL versions of the songs, on the Explicit Parental Advisory versions of the cds.The words in [ ] are blanked out on the cd.I'm BackI take seven [kids] from [Columbine], stand 'em all in lineAdd an AK-47, a revolver, a ninea Mack-11 and it oughta solve the problem of mineand that's a whole school of bullies shot up all at one timeLike Toy SolidersIt wasn't my intentions, my intentions were goodI went through my whole career without ever mentionin [Suge]Marshall MathersShit, where the fuck you think I picked up the habit?All I had to do was go in her room and lift up her mattressWhich is it bitch, Mrs. Briggs or Ms. Mathers?It doesn't matter your [attorney Fred Gibson's a] faggot!Hailie's Song_How proud I am that I got her, God, I'm a daddy.I'm so glad that her mom didn't [abort her]_The only way we even know what was supposed to go in those [ ] is by the artist's original notes which have been posted as lyrics on some sites. Nowhere can you get ahold of a copy of these songs that contains those words. Maybe, maybe the original tracks in the studio have them, but my guess is that he never even said them, even when recording. I understand that talking about Columbine is controvercial, as is calling someone who sues people a faggot (not a smart move, true) but I would have thought with all the anti-censorship envelope-pushing Eminem does, he wouldn't have allowed this.Should there be certain things you just can't say... anywhere? Or is that against our rights? (1 Comment |Comment on this) |
| Thursday, April 27th, 2006 | |
| _11:19 pm_[stolen_humanity] |
Long debate. Debate: Why is it that people have the tendency to form needless dichotomies?My stance: It's not typically necessary to break the symmetries between two things into two sepereate asymmetrical things unless one particular part of the symmetry is under inspection, in which case, considering the one part as packaged with the other part is unnecessary.Sub-Debate: In light of this, why aren't the economic freedom supporters the same as the personal freedom supporters? Why does politics divide into right and left?My stance: It's not purely a class issue. It's also an issue of ethnicity, faith, gender, and any other division in which society teaches one set of persons one set of things and another set of persons another set of things. If we are to unify former members of the left and the right towards agreement of anything, we must eliminate the dichotomy between economic activity and personal activity. With that in place, in order to restrict something that other people value, you must restrict something that you value, and in order to free something that you value, you must free something that other people value.Sub-Sub-Debate: With this in mind, how many poeple do you think will actually choose tyranny over just government? Or, on the same token, anarchy over just government?My stance: Both anarchy and tyranny are forms of irrational brute rule, since anarchy is rule of the strong in nature over the weak in nature, and tyranny is rule over the strong in politics over the weak in politics. Just government, on the other hand, is the rule of the just in society over the unjust in society.Sub-Sub-Sub Debate: Given this, is it also necessary to illustrate a false dichotomy in nature and politics, IE are they both abstractions of society in the opposite direction? Or are they fundamentally not only seperable, but necessarily seperated?My stance: Society is as much formed by natural elements and political elements as it is formed by personal elements and economic elements. Society is an abstraction that represents a unified whole.Finally, the Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub Debate: Does society have any claim over the natural/political/personal/economic in any sense? Or not?My stance: It does not, because that would imply a claim of society over the individual, since these are all fields involving individual freedom. However, this leads to a problem. Society is but a bunch of individuals all working together, or more or less, the abstraction as such. To give society a claim would either rely on things other than rights, which I can argue do not constitute a valid claim, or on rights, where it leads to a stolen concept, as it would violate individual rights and yet hold that society has rights which are inviolable. The former view simply is not justified, whereas the latter view is specifically a logical fallacy. Thus, individuals have rights, which are based off of nature and are held as a political necessity to living. Current Mood: ranty (2 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 | |
| _12:54 am_[stolen_humanity] |
Can people change? Nobody can stop being human, but doesn't being human necessarily imply posessing sentience and volition? And doesn't posessing these things mean that one can change?For example. I am human. I can be nothing but human. So therefore I can change. Having been furry or otherkin at one point does not make me not human, since that implies that our minds have some sort of mystical ability to control reality outside of their influence on the body. However, we do have minds, since the contrary view implies that our muscles have some sort of mystical ability to act in an organized fashion without the mind.Another example. Voters change. They vote for different people. Different parties. Different policies. If you examine socioeconomic, you will find that change is a part of nature. If you examine yourself, you will find that change is a part of yourself.Partly crossposted to  debate_classics, the rest snipped. Current Mood: triangle (8 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, April 18th, 2006 | |
| _10:16 am_[vnsplshr] |
Crazy cat ladies and such http://animalhoarding.blogspot.com/As you can see at the blog above, you can find a story on animal hoarding every day or so.For debate:What should be done to stop this? Random home checks? Rewards for turning in your neighbors? Nothing? (5 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 | |
| _7:27 pm_[anti_fascist_ea] | Russian KGB and Nazi in Polish Parliament |
| Wednesday, January 4th, 2006 | |
| _10:49 am_[dies___irae] |
I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about this, we have each come to some conclusions but it was a thought I hadn't previously had and am curious to see what you all think.What factors contribute to us calling a place "home"?Is it possible to have more than one "home"?Is it possible to not have a "home" at all?Is the cliche' "home is where the heart is" true? Is still still something more to it?To maybe inspire more thought I'll give the small back story.I have lived on my own for almost 2 years now, totally new state, new house, new job, new life essentially, and yet when I refer to back in Denver (the house I grew up in where my folks live) I say "back home". It suddenly struck me as strange the other day that I do that. I began to wonder then when that will change, or if it ever will. When I get married will I start calling the house where my wife and children are home? Will I call them both home? Is home even a specific place (eg building/city) or is it a general place or dare I even say "feeling"?What is the importance of having this thing known as a "home"? Would it be bad if you didn't have one and were always "on the go"?I have no idea what kind of responses I'm looking for, I guess just a little study of words that fascinated me that I'd love to see others thoughts about.enjoyamdg!PXIx-posed ad naseum (Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, November 16th, 2005 | |
| _2:53 am_[qitsun] |
Debate2, the undeletable... ...because there's nothing to be deleted!Seriously, where are all the peeps?For debate: People like the crazed antics of many of the original debate users, and the original debate users like the fact that the mods are on their side and will delete anything that offends them.Now granted not much offends these people, but some things still do. That is why I consider them pussies and don't want to go on debate anymore. They follow pretty much unenforced LJ rules. Like the use of the three letter 'f' word. It's been used on me and yet when I use it they delete my post.However, I digress. My question is, why do people reject the notion of free speech in favor of censorship? It's because of the popular kids. And I use the word 'kids' to be mean, because that's how they act. My point is, censorship is in, free speech is out. Current Mood:  contemplative (8 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Monday, September 19th, 2005 | |
| _7:49 pm_[iaskquestions] |
Why? Why do people hate serial adders? Why do people get annoyed when someone they don't know adds them as a "friend" on LJ? Why don't people just read the FAQ before they complain about it? What do you think? (2 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, August 30th, 2005 | |
| _9:46 am_[ninja_troll] |
why?????!! Why did I get banned from debate?Why was my post in debate_classics deleted?Why was my reapplication to debate rejected?WHY WHY WHY?!?!?!?!?! :'( !Current Mood:  sad (7 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005 | |
| _2:59 am_[rabid_violence] |
Well, here we are.. Current Mood: sad (4 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Saturday, July 2nd, 2005 | |
| _10:02 pm_[fire_trucks] |
Stupid Media Battles I just read another frothing-at-the-mouth article from a "sky is falling" left-wing commentator who is scared out of his pants about Bush's judicial appointees:The crisis of democracy in AmericaNow I'm going to bypass all that "run for your lives" rhetoric and I'm going to get to the part that I'm really interested in:The media is the biggest battleground. From the point of view of most progressives, right-wing voices - and often very harsh ones - dominate the airwaves, newspaper and magazine columns, and the web. This is not the place to go into the lopsided tally of right-wing pundits and talk-show hosts vs a few isolated liberals; the imbalance has been well-documented elsewhere. From the right’s point of view, though, the media still has a liberal bias, which the right chooses to address by pursuing the rare bastions of independent journalism and opinion. In the centrist media, Dan Rather has been a favourite target ever since he sharply questioned George Bush senior (then vice-president) during the 1988 presidential campaign. His mistakes in reporting on George W Bush’s National Guard record during the 2004 campaign were amplified and exaggerated by a relentless series of attacks on right-wing radio and television and in magazines like The Weekly Standard and The National Review, until he resigned. (The right-wing “blogosphere” also claimed CNN’s Eason Jordan after repeatedly distorting his remarks about US soldiers killing journalists in Iraq). With the retirements of Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel, and the illness of Peter Jennings, the remaining generation of network anchors who cut their teeth as working journalists is effectively gone.With respect to Gara LaMarche, I don't think he knows what he's talking about -- and attacking the blogosphere isn't going to do him very good. As long as the media is concentrated in the hands of the few, there will always be bias. As long as there are regulations on media -- no matter how impartial these regulations are -- there will be bias. The problem isn't that the FCC is biased; the problem is that there is an FCC at all. While liberals are trying to gain balance in the media through use of bureaucracy, this won't make the media balanced.The solution of free expression is reform. Why should I have to pay a licence to start my own television network? Why should only the very filthy rich decide which content to produce? Why should such organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA decide which media by which I can view their content?Funny enough, it is in the most socialistic of countries that old style intellectual property laws are strongest in effect. In Sweden -- left-wing bastion that it is -- it is against the law to download copywritten content. Even if you already own said content. In my native Canada, we haven't had satellite radio for two years due to my country's draconian "Canadian content" rules. Do you call this balance?You have a problem with balance in the media, eh? How about becoming an advocate for Free culture? Oh yes, you get offended by the Rush Limbaughs of the radio and the Ann Coulters. How about starting your own radio show -- and make your media free to share for all to listen. Nothing is stopping you. Here on LiveJournal, we have literally millions of people who broadcast their opinions -- live and ready to consume. There is Wikipedia, Opentunes, and Ourmedia. Lots of places and means to communicate your message.The only reason why there is is a battle over media is because every political ideology wants to shout down the other political ideology. And to do that, there has to be control over how we receive our media. I'm sorry, buddy. I think you are a whiny little crybaby who, yet again, seeks to gain control over media by arguing about "balance".You want balance? Let everyone (and by everyone I mean not just yourselves) express themselves however they see fit. That means deregulation. That means getting rid of red tape. That means -- GASP! -- less government. (8 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, April 26th, 2005 | |
| _4:07 pm_[goldenskull] |
Social Security Reform The whole Social Security debate has been heating up in the news lately (if any of you guys follow it), and, once again, I am appalled at how little people actually know about Social Security. For your benefit, I've wrangled a number of pertinent websites:The Factcheck.org article (I think everybody can agree they are non-partisan and objective, yes?) regarding Harry Reid's "Social In-Security Calculator":http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=319The infamous "Social In-Security Calculator" itself (this one with a working FAQ):http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html#The Heritage Foundation's "Social Security Calculator":http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/welcome.aspand "PRA Calculator":http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/OWCwelcome_new.aspThe White House document entitled "Strengthening Social Security" outlining the administration's plans:http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/strengthening-socialsecurity.htmlNow, very quickly, allow me to dispel some illusions:- There is no "Social Security Trust Fund". The Social Security taxes you pay (or don't), don't necessarily pay for Social Security at all. They're just extra taxes, and when you retire (assuming the institution is still around by then) you get benefits from the general pool.- President Bush isn't talking about killing the entire Social Security system. He's talking about giving every citizen the choice of diverting 4% of their paid Social Security taxes to an account that can be invested in a variety of spread-out low-risk funds. Note that the system is completely by choice. Nobody is going to be forced to "gamble" their life savings.- Today's seniors have nothing to worry about, as their benefits would not be affected at all by President Bush's SS plan, contrary to what some people have insinuated.- The concept of the PRA has been around for decades, at one time having great support from the moderate Democratic Leadership Council (of which Bill Clinton claimed membership), and has been a part of the federal system for a while (http://www.tsp.gov). It's called the "Thrift Savings Plan", and Bush didn't come up with it on his own.Please take the time to look at each website (preferably reading the last one), because I went through the bother of doing so just for you guys. :)( DisclaimerCollapse )(x-posted to just_incorrect and debate) Current Mood:  amused (Comment on this) |
| Thursday, October 28th, 2004 | |
| _10:55 pm_[ljvote04] | PLEASE PARTICIPATE! LJ Poll: WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR ON NOVEMBER 2?http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=ljvote04COPY AND PASTE THIS LINK IN YOUR JOURNALS! (3 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, October 20th, 2004 | |
| _10:34 am_[american1] |
Did Reagan end the Cold War? I saw a program last night on the Discovery Channel called "Decisions that shook the World" and it was on the US & the Soviet Union and how we kept from killing each other & near the end, it talked about Reagan's decisions concerning the USSR and certain policies with Gorbihouv(?) and it asked the question whether Reagan had a hand in ending the Cold War.So...did Reagan have a hand in ending the cold war or was it policies of the Cold War era presidents before him? (5 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Friday, September 10th, 2004 | |
| _3:42 pm_[hikerinthetrees] | Good ol' Government Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush'sdaddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but tradewith China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, butmulti-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankindwithout regulation.Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and HillaryClinton.The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops inspeeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.[Note: this policy was put into Texas schools when Bush wasgovernor; a new study shows that Texas leads the country in teenpregnancies.)Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providinghealth care to all Americans is socialism.HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the publicat heart.Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, butcreationism should be taught in schools.A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachableoffense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in whichthousands die is solid defense policy.Government should limit itself to the powers named in theConstitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring theInternet.The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, butGeorge Bush's cocaine conviction and military records are none ofour business.Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're aconservative radio host (Rush). Then it's an illness, and you needour prayers for your recovery.You support states' rights, which means Attorney General JohnAshcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have theright to adopt.What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest,but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. Current Mood:** amused (11 Comments** |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, September 1st, 2004 | |
| _12:08 pm_[somnambulisa] |
HEY DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TRACKING ENTRIES MADE ON LIVEJOURNAL?! SO UNLESS YOU WANT THEM TO FIND OUT ABOUT YOU - AND THEY WILL, AND THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING THEIR LIES OUTED - PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU POST. OR MAYBE DON'T POST ANYTHING, JUST TO BE SAFE. Current Mood: hopeful (11 Comments |Comment on this) |
| _10:39 am_[chest_rockwell] |
Dr. Boyd E. Graves postulates that AIDS was the culmination of biowarfare research conducted by the U.S. Government (and later, by the Soviet government) throughout the 20th century. He believes AIDS was developed and proliferated for the primary purpose of wiping out blacks, homosexuals, and other social groups considered to be "excess population." Dr. Graves has also suggested that Gulf War syndrome may be related to AIDS which was spread by contaminating soldiers with vaccines, and that an effective cure for AIDS has already been developed and patented (1997 United States Patent 5,676,977) by a company called Antelman Technologies Ltd., Providence, Rhode Island, but is being withheld. The evidence Graves cites that AIDS was developed in U.S. was based on a 1971 Special Virus Cancer Flow Chart that he obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Graves claims to have contracted AIDS, but was cured by a single injection of a special form of colloidal silver. Under the U.S. patent it is claimed a 100% destruction of AIDS using only 20 ppm of silver. The production of the product is based on 1994 United States Patent 5,336,499 by reacting silver nitrate with sodium or potassium peroxydisulfate. The company that makes the product is Weizmann Institute in Israel or Antelman Technologies, POB 382, Rehovat, Israel and Marantech is currently supplying the Imusil.not sure about this...going to do some research on it.....will post if i find any info of relevanceUPDATE: checked on this and it seems to be a pretty well known fact that this "CURE" exists.......yet the US Government will not allow testing even though it seems that this cure when tested on minor to mildly severe cases of AIDS has a 100% cure rate (80% cure rate total....some of the tests were done on individuals who were literally too far gone)WHY ISN'T OUR GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS??? AT LEAST PUBLICLY TESTING IT???makes no sense.....unless you believe that they are the ones that released the virus in the first place (which i DO) and it goes against there plans for their to be a cure readily availableJUST IN CASE ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED.....THIS CURE IS BEING OFFERED OUT OF THE U.S. "FREE OF CHARGE TO A VERY NOMINAL FEE" just look it up on google or yahoo or whateverif you have AIDS..........THERE IS HOPE!!!!! AND IT'S NOT THE SHIT THE FDA IS LETTING YOU TAKE (53 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, August 31st, 2004 | |
| _9:00 pm_[chest_rockwell] |
The bottom 80% of our society is being weeded out so the top 20% can own everything without interference......when was the last time you heard of a president or anyone else in power dying from cancer??? or AIDS??? or Hepatitis C??? or Diabetes??? or any other disease that's killing us in droves?? they have cures for these illnesses (especially the ones they created....*cough* HIV *cough*) and they are using them....while they just sell us drugs to make them rich that only prolong our lives so we can keep paying for them......we are being destroyed....very slowly and very systematically by those in power who want to keep the money and power....they hate a threat and that's exactly what we are...a threat......i read something awhile back about a government bio warfare lab located in africa where a scientist had created a virus that destroyed your immune system and left you susceptible to death even from a common cold.....the scientist had developed the virus AND A CURE......coincidentally the HIV virus first popped up only 5 miles from where this virus was developed..........sounds VERY convinient to me.......--jasnx_truth_x (5 Comments |Comment on this) |
[ << Previous 20 ]