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!
106
16
Action Movies's profile photoCeola Earle's profile photo

Joe Betsill
moderator

Ethics & morality  - 
 
The comments on this post are, at the time of posting, 100% positive towards the carelessness of the parent leaving the gate open. I can't help but wonder if they would be positive if something bad had happened to the unsupervised child, and they'd read it in the news.

The random outcome of carelessness should not determine how we judge the act of carelessness itself. It's either condemned regardless of a random favorable result, or condoned regardless of a random negative result.

Note: Please keep the debate here, and not in this woman's post.
 
Sarah Is Weird

I am now officially that parent. Apparently the gate wasn't closed all the way, so when I let The Puddin' out to go play in the backyard, he took the dog with him and went two houses down to go check the mailbox.

At least he was trying to be helpful?

When I ran out from the side of the house the neighbor across the street helpfully pointed out the direction they went, and let me know the dog was guarding him. No idea how long they were out.
4
jay hodgey's profile photodarryl whitfield's profile photo
5 comments
 
If I had dogs, which I don't, I would build a second gate with a small area between the gates. That way if the dog got through the first gate during normal activities such as feeding, he could not escape. When our oldest son was about the age of the child in the picture, while we were sleeping one morning, he opened the main door with deadbolt and the storm door. I then installed a latch higher up on the storm door. Kids are smart; they have to be taught if they are to survive. Perhaps a padlock would help in some cases.
Add a comment...

Ken Johnson
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
I must admit at least one point on which I agree with "the Donald". The idea that being born on American soil automatically confers permanent citizenship to a baby, even if his parents illegally entered the country specifically to take advantage of that idiotic law, is so outdated and pointless that it is time to change the law.

The idea was fine when our ancestors were spreading across an easily conquered continent. Those whiteys didn't care about displacing the indians. But we're full, now. If adults are required to "apply" for visas and eventual citizenship, then popping out of your mother during her vacation should mean nothing.

Some ostensibly "hard hitting" journalist thought he was scoring big time when he kept shouting at Trump, "what would you say to these children?". Trump ignored him, but he should have said, "I'd say what I'd say to any noncitizen. You're not a citizen". So what?
4
David Coulter's profile photo
83 comments
 
I'd like to point out too... That I too am playing a bit of Devils advocacy. I firmly believe that we should be making it far easier for immigrants to obtain citizenship. I just don't know that I'd go far enough to say...Free citizenship for everyone! But I can definitely say my line isn't far behind that. 
Add a comment...

Joe Betsill
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
There should be no religious objections while performing a government duty.

Many Christians believe divorce also is a sin, and an attorney for the same-sex couples repeatedly questioned [Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis] about this in court. Asked if she would religiously object to issuing a marriage license to someone who has been divorced, she said, "That's between them and God."

It should all be 'between them and God'. I cannot see a possible angle where this isn't straight up forcing someone else to follow the religious beliefs they obviously do not believe in-- a textbook case of violating the First Amendment. 
FILE - In this July 20, 2015 file photo, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, right, walks with her attorney Roger Gannam into the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Covington, Ky. The Rowan County, Ky., clerk's office... View Full Caption The Associated Press FILE - In this July 20, 2015 file photo, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, right, walks with her attorney Roger Gannam into the United States District Court for the ...
4
2
David Coulter's profile photoMatthew Strain (Matt)'s profile photoJoe Betsill's profile photo
50 comments
 
+David Cornell 
if the solution is to start limiting one to benefit another
That's a very common solution. I don't have the right to shoot guns in the air, despite my beliefs, because it presents a serious risk to the rights of others (namely the right to not be shot). You can blieve all day long that you should be allowed to shoot guns i nthe air, but oh well...

who is in charge of the limiting process, and where does it end
Society is in charge of that. And it ends where society says it ends. 

Society isn't forcing her (or anyone else) to believe anything. Society tells people what they can or cannot do. 
Add a comment...

Galen McKibben

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
My position: the U.S. economy, and virtually every other economy built on the consumer driven growth valued model is a fake economy doomed to ultimate failure. For example, the various industries built around mining (coal, copper, gold, other metals and minerals) have never paid the actual cost of extraction, depletion and damage to the environment. The  Hardrock Mining Law of 1872 is still the governing legislation. Mining companies extract coal, metals and minerals from government land without paying any royalties. No matter where they dig, they leave behind a legacy of EPA Superfund sites and the cost of cleaning up falls to future generations of taxpayers. Money buys favors from politicians who keep the 140-year-old out-of-date mining law intact. As easily extracted deposits run out, mining corporations purchase further favors in the form of subsidies with their donations to campaign war chests. In the meantime someone has to pay for all the costs of extraction, depletion and cleanup -- the real costs that could never be covered by income from the sale of the raw materials alone. Who pays? The so called "middle class" which, as the economic system gets older and more inbred and decrepit, begins to dwindle. The rich won't pay. The "middle class" isn't large enough to pay enough. So, infrastructures begin to degrade as does the environment as does the quality of life for all but the 1 percent who own all of the wealth.  https://theconversation.com/canary-in-the-gold-king-mine-legacy-of-abandoned-mines-means-more-spills-46112?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+August+17+2015+-+3258&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+August+17+2015+-+3258+CID_21aa50c117fb716f80407fb34c22c11d&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Canary%20in%20the%20Gold%20King%20Mine%20legacy%20of%20abandoned%20mines%20means%20more%20spills
4
1
Galen McKibben's profile photoLynz Voets's profile photoNaeem Bhat's profile photo
5 comments
 
You're welcome. I live in Colorado, so it's close to home for me. 
Add a comment...

Y2K

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
Is there a difference between immigration restrictions and emigration restrictions?

If people have a right to the leave a country than they have a right to enter it. Concerns about jobs, crime, welfare, etc, apply equally for both. The only reason we restrict immigration but not emigration is because it's easier to start up with the poor. 
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews is an electronic, peer-reviewed journal that publishes timely reviews of scholarly philosophy books.
2
pm tang's profile photoY2K's profile photo
21 comments
Y2K
+
1
2
1
 
+pm tang​ There's no difference between immigrants and born citizens in regards to these values. If anything, immigrants have a stronger work ethic than born citizens. (And having concern for the welfare of those in need is about thinking what we can find for this country.) Immigrants do call themselves American when they are recognized as Americans; the problems is that we stopped recognizing them. 
Add a comment...

April Carter

Religion  - 
 
It's so obvious that modern bible makers and teachers are liars. They claim that no one uses the so-called archaic language of the KJV, yet public speakers use it all the time. I have read articles where the writers used "eschew", "propitiation", and others. Recently, Obama used "prognosticator". But, I guess we're supposed to pretend like that didn't happen. It's like when we're told the lie that no one can know who wrote Hebrews, but law enforcement can know who wrote a death threat on a letter centuries ago. Anyone who was taught English in school by a proper teacher knows that everyone has a unique "voice". Plus, the content in and surrounding the writing provide context clues. Based on these two things, Paul wrote Hebrews. More importantly, the Holy Spirit is more than willing to tell you every truth and give you discernment, wisdom, understanding, etc. However, you have to sincerely believe and care for God and his word. Yet, the satanists' lies keep deepening and people keep blinding themselves to the truth. Be wise and stay away from American, et al, Christianity. Learn from Jeremiah through Malachi. There comes a time where almost everyone is following Satan, including so-called godly people. Stay away from modern bibles and teachings. When I say modern, I mean any bible that came after the KJV, and any teaching that never came from the bible. Of which the latter means letting go of ALL denominational teachings and traditions.
2
J. Randolph Steele's profile photoAbby Anderson's profile photo
13 comments
 
+April Carter You know, you're really starting to annoy me, mainly because of the fact that you seem to think that anyone who isn't an overly devoted Christian worships the devil, and that's discrimination in my book. True, there are a few really bad people like that out there, but most people don't follow religion that closely and are really good people. So for the love of God, stop shoving your beliefs down everyone's throats.
Add a comment...

Brett Wilkins

Ethics & morality  - 
 
Is force-feeding hunger striking prisoners ever ethically acceptable? No, and not just because I think so. So does the World Medical Association, American Medical Association and even the Israeli Medical Association, which vehemently opposes that nation's new law authorizing force-feeding. Supporters say it is meant to "save prisoners' lives." But no prisoner has died in an Israeli prison from hunger striking. Numerous inmates have, however, died after being force-fed. 
The Israeli Medical Association vehemently opposes a new law authorizing the force-feeding torture of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners.
1
Add a comment...

Mary L
moderator

General Debate  - 
 
Who are most intelligent - young or old?

Young people, generally, have more energy and enthusiasm than older people, but older people have more experience to base their actions on. So, younger people can do more in a shorter period of time, but I think the actions of older people are more considered and intelligent.
3
Matthew Bingham's profile photoPostmodern Entropy's profile photo
25 comments
 
Considering what is left in the wake of the baby boomer generation, the answer is a revelation.
Add a comment...

Steven Neary

General Debate  - 
 
Should people be drafted into national service before being given the right to vote?

I believe they should. I believe personally that if they feel the need to make future decisions facing the country then they should be willing to lay down a portion of their lives in defending what they believe is right or wrong or when to bear arms or not.
2
1
Amber Petchey's profile photoMatthew Bingham's profile photoMartine S Carruthers's profile photo
105 comments
 
+Amber Petchey he's failed to answer a single question asked in any manner at all apart from

"It's a great idea - you'll see, jast fink bout it. Roight?" (Read in cockney accent for full effect)
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.

Ken Johnson
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
Should parents on medical assistance be required to have their children vaccinated?

Yes. If your medical expenses are being paid by society, you should forfeit your right to hold antivaxer attitudes that disagree with statistical facts. Or more correctly, think whatever you like, but your actions must be based on the recommendations of those in the know. If you insist you know more about the subject than the scientists who deal which such things, fine. Opt out. But then you must opt out altogether, and no longer be eligible for state funded medicine.


2
Ken Johnson's profile photoMS An Thrope's profile photo
37 comments
 
+Ken Johnson that moral repugnance that we feel, that is keeping the world safer.

You may think of that your notion of authoritarianism would be the good kind, the beneficial kind, the moral kind. After all your kind of authoritarianism would do all the things you think are right and wouldn't do any of the things you think are wrong and you're a morally good person right, so it stands to reason that such authority should be not just accepted but welcomed.

If only people knew what was good for them we would all accept and submit.

Is that it? Close? Perhaps you hadn't yet got to notions of global domination, but the everyone agreeing with you if they knew what was good for them that bit?
Add a comment...

Amber Petchey
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
I'm guessing folks here will be unsurprised to know that occasionally I dabble in real-world politics too. Today I was attending the anti-TTIP rally: it's a complex trade deal corporations are pushing for, including unpleasant features such as being able to sue governments if they don't like a governmental law. 

We've heard a lot over the last few months about corporations wanted to be treated as individuals - so here's my question: SHOULD corporations be allowed to be treated as individuals.

My stance: Yes, but only if it works both ways - though I wonder just how you'd put a corporation in jail for breaking the law?
3
Joe Betsill's profile photoJohn Moyle's profile photo
30 comments
 
i will offer a comment which will either shed some light on this topic or lead to further chaos, but we learn by trying.

First, in regard to the personhood of a corporation, the corporation is NOT the organization and assets that belong to the stockholders, the corporation consists entirely of the stockholders themselves. Since the stockholders are all people, those people who have joined together to form the corporation are not to be denied any rights nor the equal protection of the laws to which they as people would normally be entitled.

Ok, it may be the case that much or even all of the stock in  a corporation is not owned by people, but by pension funds, banks, hedge funds, or any of a whole lot of other kinds of organizations including governments at all levels. Even so those other organizations are owned by persons, or by other organizations that are owned by persons, etc. etc. Ultimately ownership resides in persons. Their is no such thing as ownership of property  by anything other than a person or an organization made up of persons. The right to own property belongs only to individuals or to legal organizations owned by individuals.

Corporations are formed explicitly to limit the financial liability of their owners in the event the corporation fails. There is nothing in a corporate charter that impinges on freedom of speech and so the stockholders acting together are allowed to use the assets they hold in common, i.e. the corporation's loot, to express whatever views they may have on whatever topic suits them just as i and three of my friends might agree, late one evening in a bar, to each chip in $100 and buy an ad in the local paper declaring the bartender to be the most beautiful woman in town. And just as the 4 ad buying pranksters might be sued for defamation by Craig the body building bartender, corporations can be sued for libel or any other speech related offense.

Corporations do not have the right to vote because each stockholder who is legally permitted to vote can do so for him or herself, and the stockholders are limited to at most one vote in public elections.

The real issue here is that individuals cannot be limited in the amount of money they spend supporting their political opinions. The fact that their money happens to be in the form of assets of a corporation they own is incidental. That is what needs to be changed.

Wealth can be easily translated into political power in one of two ways: use the media, primarily television, to influence voters, or even better give money to candidates so they can use the media and at the same time be beholden to the people who write the big checks. This is nothing more than legalized bribery.
Add a comment...
 
Today, I am going to talk about the Oxford comma. As someone who very much likes logic and standardising the English language, I am an ardent supporter of the Oxford comma. I've looked at the arguments used to support omitting the Oxford comma and they basically consist of "A person knows better than to think the last two things listed in a phrase are combined" and "In the rare case where one may be fooled into thinking the last two things listed in a phrase are combined, simply rephrase the statement". This, of course, is laughable. The first argument rules in favour of not differentiating between homonyms and using non-Latin characters to replace Latin characters as long as the non-Latin characters look like the Latin characters they are supposed to replace. "Your stupid therefor I wont trust you" and "I00k 4t mə" are both understood by me therefore they are correct is basically what those who oppose the Oxford comma say. The second argument is even more laughable. To begin with, it implies that using the Oxford comma is logical for it would turn a phrase that appears odd and misleading into something any English speaker can understand but one should still not to use it. One need only press a key one time to add one comma or make a simple gesture to turn their phrase from odd and misleading to normal and comprehensible but of course that is labour intensive therefore one should rephrase his entire phrase (as in deleting the phrase or using a new piece of paper) because the Oxford comma should never be used. I think the question that should really be asked to those who refuse to use the Oxford comma shouldn't be "Why do you not use it?", it should be "How is it that you can write an article that contains thousands of words yet pressing one key is too hard and should be avoided?"

If you disagree, it is now time for you to debate.

Also, an example where adding one tiny character to a phrase could have prevented the development of an odd and misleading phrase.
6
Stephen Miller's profile photoBryce Etheridge's profile photo
10 comments
 
"You can have my Oxford Comma when you pry it from my cold, dead, and lifeless hands"
Add a comment...

Joe Betsill
moderator

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
The Stone Mountain carving should not be sandblasted away, or otherwise destroyed.

Unlike the Confederate flag, the Stone Mountain carving cannot be taken down and put into a museum. Destroying the carving would indeed be destroying an irreplaceable work of art, and thus special consideration should be given. 
6
Joe Betsill's profile photoEric Mueller's profile photo
24 comments
 
+Postmodern Entropy​ Lawl, you get called on your B.S. and you respond by telling me to develop depth of thought. Listen to +Joe Betsill​, debate the topic.
Add a comment...

Amber Petchey
moderator

General Debate  - 
 
Question: what's the appropriate action?

Four youths with a motorbike, no helmet, no license plate, apparently no clue (they couldn't get it kickstarted, and were all over when they did), giving each other rides...

I called my non-emergency line to let the local patrol know so they could check in.

I'm betting no license, no insurance, and not a full license for passengers, never mind the lack of safety wear - that's a whole bunch of legal problems.
1
Michael Leae's profile photoAllen Booth's profile photo
31 comments
 
Makes you a "tattle tale" at best.

If you were sincerely concerned with their well being you could've spoken to them directly, attempted to locate the parents, or give them pointers on how to control the device or proper safety equipment.

Calling the police so they can potentially be fined, arrested, or lose their device is just prudish and is in no shape or form based on their best interests. You did what you wanted to do for your own sake, nothing short. 
Add a comment...

Mary L
moderator

Sex and sexuality  - 
 
Which is most harmful - homosexuality or asexuality?

A person's sexuality has a huge influence on their health (mental and physical).  Homosexuality and asexuality both share that they carry stigma, and individuals with either condition can believe that there is something wrong with them - I don't share that opinion.  I believe that asexuality can be more damaging to an individual's mental health than homosexuality, because even if people can be persuaded to "admit to" their condition, they are less likely to find "romantic" relationships and mix with people who share common problems - I know of no groups where "asexual" people can mix socially. 
3
Lynz Voets's profile photoAmber Petchey's profile photo
51 comments
 
+Lynz Voets , well, I wondered what sort of other things you'd do even if you weren't much interested in doing them :) 
Add a comment...
 
On this, the 70th anniversary of the only nuclear war ever waged in human history, a question: Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima necessary? I don't believe it was, high school history brainwashing aside. Japan was completely vanquished by the summer of 1945 and trying to find a way to surrender with honor. As the many quotes in this article from top US military and gov't officials shows, the decision to use the atomic bomb was as much about the postwar order than about defeating an already defeated Japan. 
Waging nuclear war against Japan was not only one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century, it was also unnecessary.
3
David Cornell's profile photoJ. Randolph Steele's profile photo
40 comments
 
+David Cornell I was a little bit older than yourself at the time and that segregation did not seem at all natural to me. Then or now.

"But what mechanism would you have applied to overcome the entrenched belief still held by virtually all white Americans in 1963..."

Firstly; the "virtually all..." is debatable but I presume you were living in the South at the time(?) and I in the North so that may be just a matter of perception.

At the time, I thought the mechanism used was both appropriate and necessary.

Using hindsight; I think a law something like: All American citizens have equal rights and are to be treated equally in all matters by all citizens. It is illegal to refuse products, services, housing... (you can add to the list) to a citizen without a legally justifiable cause."   would have served better and, possibly, have reduced the "we vs them" entrenchment and the covert discrimination, and related problems, that exist today.

In any event; I don't care to discuss it further at this time and it is a bit off-topic.

I only brought it up because you had used ERA as an example of corrected historical mistakes. I just wanted to point out that we don't always effectively correct our past mistakes. And; we do tend to essentially forget about them once they have been, seemingly, addressed. 
Add a comment...

Joseph Nardone

Politics and Public Policy  - 
 
VP Joe Biden is considering running for the Presidency next year.  When he ran for the Presidency for the first time many years ago, it was revealed that he was nearly dismissed from law school because he was caught plagiarizing on his final paper.  That revelation excluded him from running for the Presidency.  He served as VP and during his tenure, the Secret Service had to cover-up his stays in rehab because he had a serious drinking problem.  
Resolved:  Does a man with such serious personality defects deserve serious consideration as a Presidential candidate?
2
1
Amber Petchey's profile photopm tang's profile photoJoseph Nardone's profile photo
23 comments
pm tang
 
was Churchill a Hero or a leader?
Add a comment...

Leilena Endrina

++READ ME FIRST++  - 
 
Sex trafficking is ran by the people who are supposed to find them.

Universal McCann
Children's global hospital
The hot line for missing children
The hot line for unaccompanied
Minors
Hague convention of the civil aspects of international child abduction -admits to child retention.- recording
CPS
All are apart of stealing filming and hideing the bodies under ground in privys in the cities

All the kids are under ground. The sextrafficking and child abduction center are the same people. That's why we never find the kids
1
Ken Johnson's profile photoJ. Randolph Steele's profile photo
5 comments
 
There is a piece on CNN that might make this thread more interesting.  I agree with Saar's 'Myth'.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/opinions/saar-child-trafficking-united-states/index.html
Add a comment...

Gwen Hunter

Ethics & morality  - 
 
Wasn't sure whether this would be the correct branch to post into - so please move it if it's wrong.

I had a friendly discussion with a black friend of mine about how black people react when someone from another race tries to understand and be involved in the issues that black people are having - needless to say, it ended badly. 

My question is: Why are black people offended when it comes to race issues in general even when you clearly state that you're simply trying to understand the issue and not "butt in" ?

I've had this problem for a while because my neighborhood is mostly black families, which I don't mind of course, I'm the furthest thing from a racist but it seems to me like some of the black people are even declining help completely or simply avoid the whole discussion for no reason. Not to mention they're quite aggressive (not physically, of course) when it comes to retaliating as if they see debating about that with anyone but their own race is something that's not acceptable. I can't see the issue with someone from another race asking and trying to understand, that's all.
5
Y2K's profile photoStacey Harris's profile photo
48 comments
 
I don't know how valid the story is, but the last report I heard was that the people that disrupted that conference were not from BLM but were instead provocateurs employed by some group desiring to illegitimize the movement. I will fact check that but it's more believable than a call to violence or shutting down a political ally that has been part of the civil rights movement since the 60s even if some of what they said resonated with the community as a whole. 
Add a comment...