Stream

Join this community to post or comment
Pinned by moderator

David Coulter
moderator

++READ ME FIRST++  - 
 
Read Before Posting

Posts in this community must meet 3 simple requirements:

1. You need to present a debatable motion or question

2. You need to present your position on the topic

3. You need to provide support for your position (namely in the form of evidence or logic) Note: links to websites may be used as supporting evidence, but members must not be required to follow the link; you must (at very least) provide a synopsis of the information presented in the link. 

For additional rules and guidelines, please review the +READ ME FIRST++ section found here:
https://plus.google.com/communities/109258339361995823601/stream/088d8cae-e312-4e92-b742-16a23b13db9e

Thanks, and enjoy!
162
20
Mukesh Mehta's profile photoSimba The King Lion's profile photo

Darren Stansbury

Ethics & morality  - 
 
If you do what's right only because doing so is mandated by policy, law or propriety you have false--superficial--morality and ethics.

You're truly moral and ethical if you desire to and do what's right. It must be in your heart. 

Can we say someone who avoids wrong actions because of legal, policy or societal restrictions and not out of conscience is truly moral or ethical?


1
Darren Stansbury's profile photoDavid Coulter's profile photo
9 comments
 
+Darren Stansbury
Yes I'm aware. But none of that is actually why you choose to be moral or not. That's just an easy narrative that helps you rationalize your morality. 
Add a comment...

Darren Stansbury

General Debate  - 
 
Is a woman's choice to date or marry a known criminal the result of bad parenting or her own bad values?

I think it's her own bad values, her attraction to bad--even dangerous--men.

Some women like "bad boys" and thugs.
Hybristophilia , The Female Attraction to Violence
1
Darren Stansbury's profile photoMary L's profile photo
3 comments
Mary L
+
1
2
1
 
Will you edit the post to ask: "If a woman chooses to marry a known criminal, is it because of bad parenting?" Explain what you think and why. Then we can debate the issue.
Add a comment...

Rob Wasteney

Technology  - 
 
Ok. Every year we have a selection of the latest and greatest range of mobile phones, these usually come with bigger and better everything.

But how much does the average consumer actually use?

I would suggest that the latest and greatest mobile devices generally don't offer much more than what the average user would typically notice.

I for example, do not look at this year's devices, I look at last year's flagship devices, being that I believe them to be equally capable but after a year become subject to a significant price drop as manufacturers concentrate on their latest handsets.
2
1
Amber Peall's profile photoHells Barr's profile photoRob Wasteney's profile photo
9 comments
 
At this stage I really don't care for the latest infact I'm still on an old Huawei and it does everything I need it to. 
Add a comment...

Darren Stansbury

General Debate  - 
 
Gentlemen don't stir feral lust in women as do brash, narcissistic, difficult, domineering or violent men. So, many women view the latter's personality deficiencies as displays of masculine power and this apparent power both attracts and disgusts them.

These women see such men as more manly than the nice ones. So, they may say all men are pigs based on experiences with the latter, but continue dating the pigs.

So, you see many attractive women shun nice men and flock to men who sooner or later disrespect them. Such men might be seen as jerks, players or thugs but for this same reason get more dates than the others.

For the same reason many men forego sweet, sensitive, mild-mannered women for demanding, manipulative, catty, cold, shallow or crazy ones--especially the crazy ones. Common male thinking is crazy equals great sex.
9
1
Darren Stansbury's profile photoBeret Beats's profile photoRobert Cotton's profile photo
29 comments
 
+Darren Stansbury low self esteem doesn't necessarily attract girls to bad men. I know some girls with low self esteem that ended up with more respectful guys
Add a comment...

Will Henry

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
Election Day should not be a national holiday, because the freedom to work on any day of the year is one guaranteed by natural law; it is not subject to any government mandate to "take a break."
President Obama made headlines last week by publicly supporting making Election Day a national holiday, which would mean…
2
Tom Jester's profile photoAndrew Fisk's profile photo
33 comments
 
+Alicia Jones Being free, I don't care, I have no interest in selecting a new master every few years.
Add a comment...

Rob Wasteney

General Debate  - 
 
Does classical music still inspire today's generation? Or has musical tastes today more or less eclipsed the great composers?

Personally I think absolutely not. The classic composers still inspire, it's just they are over saturated with noise.
Of all the bands I saw working first aid at my local arena, the only one I actually remember is Andrea Bochelli, that piece of classical music had a bigger more lasting impact than a multitude of 'chart artists'
The trick is increasing exposure for the general public as it's sorely lacking.
6
Larry Pepper's profile photoCosmicCheetah's profile photo
12 comments
 
Yes, my friend and I were just listening to Mozart yesterday. Listen to classical music is, in my opinion, part of being civilized and cultured.
Add a comment...

XinH Nguyen

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
Since being deprived of the internet would be viewed by many as a serious punishment, do you think it is right to give internet access to those in prison who are ostensibly being punished for a serious crime they've committed?

My view (short version):
I think it is okay to allow individuals in prison to use internet for the basis of learning and education. So controlled use of internet (i.e. like parental control). They are in prison to be punished but also to rehabilitate from their wrongdoings, and if the internet can help with that than why not let them use it?

http://justxinh.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/q87-should-internet-be-right-for.html
7
Lori Slisher's profile photo
16 comments
 
The internet isn't a "right" for anyone. It's a privilege. No different than having cable, driving, or having an air conditioner. When you commit a crime, you forfeit privileges that are extended to law-abiding citizens as part of your sentence. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you have the liberty to get a job and pay for services like the internet, and it's not cheap. An incarcerated person is depending on our tax dollars to provide them with the necessities for survival. If they want privileges, they should pay for them, like we do. Why should we pay for them to have internet? It isn't a necessity. They can use computers without internet. There is a plethora of educational software available for free.
Add a comment...

Eze Eluchie

Business and Finance  - 
 
WHICH COUNTRY IS ‘FANTASTICALLY CORRUPT’? THE VICTIM COUNTRIES OR THE RECIPIENT COUNTRIES?

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s reference to Nigeria and Afghanistan as ‘fantastically corrupt’ countries is the height of hypocrisy coming from the head of a regime whose country is home to a substantial part of global loot and whose policies encourage British overseas territories to continue to serve as Tax havens and sanctuary for illicit wealth.

Clearly, the TI 'Corruption Perception Index'is faulty in its categorization of victim States as most corrupt.

http://ezeluchie.blogspot.com.ng/2013/10/global-corruption-perception-index.html
by Eze Eluchie One form of art which has successfully, over the years, masqueraded itself as a science, is the analysis of societal and economic data. Without doubt, the collection and collation of such data, when done in a...
1
1
Pororo the Little Penguin's profile photo
Add a comment...

About this community

Please Read the Category labeled "++READ ME FIRST++" before posting. GLOBAL | ENDURING | IMPORTANT | SERIOUS | FUN | DEBATE Violence, climate change, religion, piracy, pornography, the 1%, the bottom billion, liberty, equality ... Every day the big questions that shape our world are played out in the news. And +Versus is where we can come together to try to make sense of it all by threshing it out.
 
I am gay, and a Christian, I think it'should not a sin, this video tells why, but what do you think, and please, watch video first

https://youtu.be/PCu8wvBRFEo

1
Tony M.'s profile photoAnthony Marchisello's profile photo
2 comments
 
It's not a sin

Add a comment...

Benjamin Fisher

Great Debates  - 
 
 
Should the #UK renew its Trident nuclear weapons programme?

#Trident is the UK’s nuclear weapon system, established in the early 1980s, consisting of three parts: submarines, missiles and warheads.
There is growing support to scrap trident with growing support of labour leader Jeremy Corbyn amongst others.
1
Ken Johnson's profile photo
 
Please present your debate as instructed in the community guidelines. You have raised a subject. Now, state your opinion, and say why you think so. This addition must be edited in to the OP, not just in a new comment.
Add a comment...

Judo

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
About 6 years ago, a young 15 year old girl commits suicide due to cyber bullying from fellow students. The 5 cyber bullies were arrested and sentenced to 10 years. This all took place in the state of Massachusetts, USA.
Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Phoebe_Prince
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/05/teens-who-admitted-to-bullying-phoebe-prince-sentenced/

My point of this is to ask whether encouraging one to kill his/herself should be illegal.
3
Mary L's profile photoCosmicCheetah's profile photo
8 comments
 
If you're trying to convince someone to kill themselves, that's pretty much murder. Yeah, I see no reason why it should be legal.
Add a comment...

Will Henry

General Debate  - 
 
Not only does natural law exist but as it pertains to human beings, is inseparable from their very lives. It is the collection of those abilities, rights and privileges to which every person is entitled due to their living, separate, corporeal states. “[I]nalienable,” as stated, if not fully outlined, in the Declaration of Independence. Contemplation of natural law inspired written law. St. Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes but more notably William Blackstone laid the intellectual foundation for codification of natural law in English law. Overseas, a short time later and after intense debate, the Framers found it necessary to include mention of natural law in the Constitution: specifics include Amendment I especially but also, if not more directly in Amendment II, the right to self-defense. Moreover, English law served to form the basis of legal jurisprudence in the United States.

Our brains function to operate our bodies but more spectacularly, we are born with the ability to form thoughts that can run one spectrum from mundane, routine and simple to quite complex, and another (spectrum) that includes emotions, plans, calculations, past and future movements, trials and errors, etc. They are not shared with any other person; they are ours, individually. In silence, at any given time no one knows what another is thinking, any more than one knows how another’s brain is operating his or her body. When a person decides to speak, it is the result of his or her individual will, thought process and physical ability; he or she needs no authorization from another person or group of people, such as a government. We have the freedom of speech: we can say what we wish without government sanction, so long as we respect the rights of all others. Often, this prerequisite to freedom, unfortunately, is treated as fluid – applied to varying degrees at different times - by governments in order to execute an agenda after having lost sight of the best interests of the majority of the citizenry.

All living things seek shelter but as individuals, we naturally do not seek to live indiscriminately. We all choose specific geographic locations, types of shelters in and the other persons with whom we reside and we retain the right and ability to do so. These choices may be limited by artificial means, such as zoning laws, borders, armies and man-made laws but by and large, they are not dictated by governments. Within some constraints, each of us makes our own decision.

In the same fashion, it is a person’s natural right to choose with whom and whom not he and/or she will associate. If one decides, for example, that a workplace is undesirable, one may engage another (or none at all!) for terms of employment. A baker who decides he or she will not fulfill a potential customer’s request is choosing non-association with that customer, simultaneously laying him- or herself open to the will of the market - more likely to his or her detriment. The Congressional Black Caucus is another example of a legitimate freedom of association. The members of the CBC retain their right to exclusivity because they are people – they may decide their activities without any need for government permission.

Were there no natural law, there’d have been no need for hundreds and hundreds of legal cases such as Roe v. Wade; while it should have been unnecessary, it places in writing a woman’s natural right to make her own health decisions – the issue of abortion aside, something that she does every day. Natural laws are not all written on paper but nonetheless exist, whether on paper or not. No one has ever been or will ever be entitled to take another’s natural rights without his or her permission, notwithstanding that historically worldwide, this has been and continues to be done. It remains illegitimate in nature. Immoral, too.

Whenever doubt as to the existence of natural law arises, it can be allayed by a simple look in the mirror. The one looking back is a natural phenomenon that retains its own right of self-determination.
3
Will Henry's profile photoDavid Coulter's profile photo
20 comments
 
+Will Henry 
Natural law certainly did not arise from...the nation's founding documents, which reflect a tolerance for an accepted practice of the day
Ya know...I'm going to gloss over the brutal irony of allowing slavery in order to be tolerant (HAHAHAHA).

And instead I'll point out that they actually owned slaves themselves. They didn't write the Constitution with an attempt to be tolerant; they owned slaves themselves. So either they owned slaves against their knowledge that it was a violation of "natural law" OR they didn't KNOW it was a violation of natural law, because no one KNOWS what natural law is.

the Founders and Framers were left with no practical alternative but to accept the imperfect in their effort toward perfection
Again...you act as if they just begrudgingly went along with it - as though they themselves didn't like the practice. And if that's the case... Why in the hell did they own slaves??

While they did not outlaw slavery, neither did they assert a specific right to it
And that implies what to you?? That somehow in their conscience they just knew it was against natural law (despite their aforementioned ownership)?

natural law cannot be created
I'm not sure how you mean this. I mean - at the start of your rant you state that natural rights are the collection of abilities and rights...blah blah blah.... Now as we've seen, at the time of the writing of the Constitution there were many rights not given or protected, that were added later. So what's going on here?? Is "natural law" just whatever we happen to say it is? Or do you happen to have some magic list of rights no one else has ever seen? If you do - could you list those out for us?
Add a comment...

Darren Stansbury

General Debate  - 
 
Disqus sucks.

●It's outdated.

●It times out if you idle for a bit while creating a discussion thread.

●Discussions automatically close after a week. 
1
Larry Pepper's profile photoDarren Stansbury's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Larry Pepper Yes. Many will say how they feel but not why they feel as they do.
Add a comment...

Amber Peall
moderator

Business and Finance  - 
 
 
How are we going to be able to teach children the value of money in a cashless world?

When it was all cash transactions it was easy, as the money was there in front of them and when it was gone..
2
Ben Quijada's profile photo
24 comments
 
Ditto +Daniel Robinson as well as their accomplishments.
Add a comment...

Greg Reynolds

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
The winds of change are coming to both parties. Trump is in the dangerous position of wrecking the Republican party and alienating the world.

Sanders is in the position of derailing Clinton and dividing the Democrats.

It does not matter who will win the nomination. The USA will go through major changes in the next four years and none of it may be good.

I am open to a third party candidate but neither party has a strong contender.

Who would be your choice for a third party run? If any I would put strongly forth John Kasich. He may not be a celebrity nor a rock star but at least he is honest and has a great deal of knowledge and wisdom.
1
Larry Pepper's profile photoJ. Randolph Steele's profile photo
7 comments
 
I learned to distrust polls decades ago +Larry Pepper and if you read what I wrote I already answered your question.
Add a comment...

Ken Johnson
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
I wonder how many of you believe it will be possible to come to a peaceful truce with the various Islamic extremist terrorists.

I say it can never happen. They must be exterminated.

It would be different if they were a decent people with legitimate grievances. They aren't. They are animals who raid villages to steal girls for sex slaves, which are sold for as little as 10 cigarettes. Women too old or unattractive are killed.

Their religious claims are bullshit. They are excuses to live like pirates. They must be crushed.
5
1
Ken Johnson's profile photoCosmicCheetah's profile photoPororo the Little Penguin's profile photo
55 comments
 
The Islamic State must be annihilated.
Add a comment...

Darren Stansbury

Great Debates  - 
 
Some people may be considered mean or cruel:

●Bullies

●Malicious gossips and rumor mongers

●Malicious jokers

●Hot heads

●People who abuse, torture or kill animals for fun

●Ill-wishers who take delight in learning of or witnessing others' physical or emotional pain or hardships

Some people may be considered evil:

●Ruthless dictators

●Psychopaths (i.e., serial killers and mass murderers)

Many people believe and have believed that no one human is truly evil and that we all harbor good and evil.

Consider people such as Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.

If you call them evil many people will agree with you. However, they probably didn't view themselves as evil.

Is evil is as evil does, is it a matter of intention or both--desiring and committing evil?

In Hitler's view the Jews and not he was evil and everyone not fitting his idea of a "master race" was dreck. If he really didn't view his actions as evil there's also the question of his mental health and in the Christian view the influence of Satan.

In Osama's view the Western world ("infidels") and not he was evil. Is someone who kills in the name of religion as evil as a person who kills for his own benefit?

Consider the great philanthropist Armand Hammer, who was exposed as a fraud posthumously. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Armand_Hammer.aspx.

I think we all have an innate evil nature but not all of us succumb to it.




3
Darren Stansbury's profile photoPeter Oaks's profile photo
13 comments
 
+Darren Stansbury Yes, that's true. Shall we go and do the banks now?
Hitler and many like him were very disenfranchised after the end of WWI because they felt they had been stabbed in the back by their own masters and the Marxists etc. He was a bitter man and this spiralled into his genocidal attitude towards Jewry and other unwanted members of the Reich. Himmler was a pocket occultist and dreamer who saw the opportunity to enlarge his profile within the Reich, and he succeeded. He had Ernst Rohm shot by implicating him in a plot to kill Hitler and he stopped at nothing to advance his own interests and those of the SS. The NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) was a breeding ground for these characters to commit the most atrocious of crimes.
So yes, it was, or became, a catalyst for evil. The trouble is, there are plenty of them still about...in my opinion.
Add a comment...

Amber Peall
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
There's ranting about Israel from all directions, who really has rights to it, who has been unfairly treated as a result of it and so on and so forth...
I'm not interested in blaming either side.
My question is: what's the best solution?
My opinion: I have no idea what might be practical. Tell them all that NO ONE can have it and preserve the whole lot for historical value?
3
1
J. Randolph Steele's profile photoShon Cade's profile photoबाबू कांबळे.'s profile photo
20 comments
 
We can start by placing an embargo on selling weapons to or financing weapons purchases for either side until a peaceful solutions is reached. Enforcement would be difficult and imperfect, but it could make sustaining the conflict too difficult for either side, encouraging diplomatic solutions. In the best case, I think that would probably be a two state solution with highly contested regions as jointly controlled special administrative districts, or a one state solution with regions like the Gaza Strip operating with increased autonomy, similar to Hong Kong.
Add a comment...

Ken Johnson
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
Obama issues fiat: all public schools must let students use the bathroom of their self-identitified gender, or lose federal funds.

What does this accomplish? If a man who self-ids as a woman wishes to use the ladies loo, it implies to me that he (she) wishes to avoid having men nearby while she goes. This makes sense if she regards herself as a heterosexual female.

Society is embracing TGs, and respecting their wishes to be regarded as whichever sex they feel themselves to be. It seems the public restroom issue is a sticking point because we haven't definitively stated the actual point of gendered bathrooms.

So, what is the purpose of separate bathrooms? If it is simply to separate penises from vaginas, there would be no issue. But it's not that simple. It seems to me that the point of gendered bathrooms originally was, and continues to be, the separation of potential sex partners. Those of us who are sexually attracted to women should not be milling about in the ladies room, and vice-versa.

If that is in fact the case (which, I think, has yet to be confirmed), then it makes sense that a TG who is physically male, but identifies as a female who is attracted to men, should rightly use the ladies room, and thus avoid the issue of sexual tension in the bathroom.

This admission doesn't simplify the problem, though. It complicates it. Look at the variables:

1. Cisgendered males, heterosexual.
2. CG females, hetero
3. CG Gay males
4. CG Gay females
5. TG males, gay
6. TG females gay
7. TG males, hetero
8. TG females hetero

With all these to consider, it seems we might be best served by renaming the bathrooms. Instead of boys/girls, it might be better to say those who like boys/those who like girls.

What's the debate? I'm trying to establish the actual purpose of gender-specific bathrooms. I say it is actually the separation of those who like boys from those who like girls, and NOT the separation of those who were born with penises from those who weren't. 

I have 8 distinct groups listed, but they all fit into one of the two groups of attraction. That, then, should be the deciding issue. 
4
Amber Peall's profile photo
78 comments
 
Or, as mentioned earlier, just have cubicles. Problem solved.
Add a comment...