Other Controversial Topics

[Birdsie]

If everyone takes a eye for a eye everyone will be blind means. If everyone seeks vengence then no one will be alive to enjoy it. Also, dialect is different, where I grew up it's 'a'.
And neat, still gun control implies it would deal with gun related deaths but if we're being anal sure.
Also you don't have to underline it, I can fucking read. As I assume you can.
But you mentioned school shootings and the like. Which would make what I said in the area you were speaking. Homicides.

It's not about vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive. Revenge is an emotional response to perceived injustice. No, not vengeance. Justice and punishment. If a thief steals from someone, he should return the item as it's not his and give away an item of equal value or make up for it with community service. Evil should be punished with an equal amount of evil, that's how things should work in my eyes.

I was just using it to bring your attention over to the crucial part.

 

[Lappi]

It's not about vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive. Revenge is an emotional response to perceived injustice. No, not vengeance. Justice and punishment. If a thief steals from someone, he should return the item as it's not his and give away an item of equal value or make up for it with community service. Evil should be punished with an equal amount of evil, that's how things should work in my eyes.

I was just using it to bring your attention over to the crucial part.

Yea but is it really justice if your countering evil with evil. If you counter fire with fire then you just end up with a bigger fire.
I think the death penalty should be a thing. But used only in cases of extreamly bad deeds. Since my first post here I have changed my mind on my stance. While not every life is worth much. If you give someone the death penalty for killing 1 person then you now have 2 dead people. Your just Adding on to a body body count. I think if better prison system were implemented that helped rehabilitate then you would have another productive member of society instead of 2 corpses needing to be buried. Of course this is in a perfect world but rehabilitation should always be the first choice.

 

[Birdsie]

Yea but is it really justice if your countering evil with evil. If you counter fire with fire then you just end up with a bigger fire.
I think the death penalty should be a thing. But used only in cases of extreamly bad deeds. Since my first post here I have changed my mind on my stance. While not every life is worth much. If you give someone the death penalty for killing 1 person then you now have 2 dead people. Your just Adding on to a body body count. I think if better prison system were implemented that helped rehabilitate then you would have another productive member of society instead of 2 corpses needing to be buried. Of course this is in a perfect world but rehabilitation should always be the first choice.

I agree rehabiliation is a choice, but only if the crime is manslaughter, and not outright murder.

IE: If I plan killing someone for two-three hours and go with it, I deserve death because I'm a horrible human being. If I kill someone because I recklessly fell from a height onto them making their neck snap once they hit the ground, or in a fit of rage, I can still be rehabilitated because both of these instances were mistakes.

I still believe in the eye for eye in other crimes, though.

 

[Lappi]

I agree rehabiliation is a choice, but only if the crime is manslaughter, and not outright murder.

IE: If I plan killing someone for two-three hours and go with it, I deserve death because I'm a horrible human being. If I kill someone because I recklessly fell from a height onto them making their neck snap once they hit the ground, or in a fit of rage, I can still be rehabilitated because both of these instances were mistakes.

I still believe in the eye for eye in other crimes, though.

Murderers murder because they are sick. But it's not always uncureable. This is where are opinions diverge.

 

[Birdsie]

Murderers murder because they are sick. But it's not always uncureable. This is where are opinions diverge.

Murderers murder for many different reasons. What's important is that they have the mental capacity and lack of moral compass to kill another human being for any reason at all. It doesn't matter whether you can cure it or not. What matters is that they already killed someone and have proven themselves a serious threat to society that must be eliminated before it grows, and to set an example for other potential scum of that sort. When you see a tiger attack you, you don't think about taming it to make it your friend. You think about escaping from it, but when the tiger lives in the city, you can't escape and have to resort to other measures.

 

[Collidias Rex]

About gun control. Alot of the places you speak of have a small population and a small amount of guns as a result. There is a direct correlation with gun ownership and violent crime decrease. I'll edit the study in few minutes.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/

People are actively trying to prevent homicides - it's no surprise that the rate is going down in a developed nation. I can't say what might cause a spike in concealed-carry permits, but I'm pretty confident that "both are increasing" doesn't necessitate a meaningful relationship between the two.

 

[Thatoneflawedhero]

• Abortion - My opinion on this is slightly complicated but I believe a woman has the right to do it and shouldn't be hated for her decision.
• The Death Penalty - For Major crimes like sexual assualt and mass murder I do believe this is neccessary as rehabilitation does nothing.
• Animal Testing - I have a mixed view on this topic, I don't support it but I understand why it's done.
• Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth? Yes, Genetics and such. Besides I didn't choose to be straight did I?
• Should Churches Remain Exempt from Taxes? No, you're still a public service.
• Gun Control - Pro-gun but there should be background checks
• Drinking Age (raised, lowered, remain the same?) I don't like alchol but I think it should be the same
• Euthanasia - I don't like to see people in pain.
• Medical Marijuana - F u c k y e s.
• Prostitution - Taxed and aslong as the woman isn't forced
• Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace - I could care less to be honest.
• Standardised Tests - A test and a IQ measurment doesn't measure a kids true abilities as some kids rush through it, I think it's fucking stupid.
• Immigration - America was built on Immigrants but if you want to come here you need to come here legally though I think the immigration test should be easier.
• Religion - Fucking hate it, but I believe people have the right to believe in whatever but I do think religions that become a problem should be banned (Not going to name any religions but I think you know what I'm refering to when I say 'Become a problem'.)

(Please understand this is just my opinion and I don't want anyone hating me for it.)

 

[Lappi]

People are actively trying to prevent homicides - it's no surprise that the rate is going down in a developed nation. I can't say what might cause a spike in concealed-carry permits, but I'm pretty confident that "both are increasing" doesn't necessitate a meaningful relationship between the two.

Yea but there is a good correlation. Look at Maine.
Very high gun ownership rate per capita and very low crime rate.

 

[Lappi]

People are actively trying to prevent homicides - it's no surprise that the rate is going down in a developed nation. I can't say what might cause a spike in concealed-carry permits, but I'm pretty confident that "both are increasing" doesn't necessitate a meaningful relationship between the two.

Then look at Detroit. Strict gun laws and very high crime rate.

 

[Borkus Lazorus]

Abortion - I'm okay with it without having the experience of witnessing it. My opinion is that people should have choice, whether or not they want to have that baby. Abortion has to be done if the person is too young to safely have a baby or if there are pre-existing conditions which make it dangerous for a baby to be born. What I don't get about most pro-lifers is why you aren't radical enough.

Let's put this in perspective.

The total amount of abortions in America since 1970 from 2013 in the US alone is 51 million. That's not even counting other countries. If you seriously believe that everytime there is an aboriton, you kill a life, then why aren't you being more morally upright for your beliefs. Why don't you go stop it? Go to your nearest abortion clinic and shut it down if you believe so. Per your beliefs, countries are killing hundreds of thousands of lives everyday, so go and stop it if you believe that's the case. No sane person should just protest about this supposed act of genocide.

Death Penalty - Killing people for irredeemable acts seems right in concept but in reality, this doesn't work out properly. Let's get the moral high ground and humanity for a second since those are social constructs used to base what we believe to be good and evil. The cost of killing people is insanely exorbiant (unless you want to resort to mass-killings of criminals in gas chambers and bullets to the head. Barbaric and unethical ways are usually more cheap.). There have also been plenty of cases where innocent people have been put on death row and killed. So, that fucking sucks.

The Death Penalty is an irreversible act of punishment and so, it must not be treated lightly like a jail sentence you can dole out on a daily basis.

Animal Testing - Yes. Insulin and many other medical products are used to cure us and humankind. Absolute yes to animal testing that will benefit humanity first and only. Not any sadistic procedures such as 'chimeras' or something wholly unecessary.

Is Sexual Orientation Determined At Birth? - No. Most people get biological sex and sexual orientation completely confused. There have been recorded cases of lesbian and homosexual behavior since ancient times. These largely depend on enviromental factors. It'd be foolish not to rule out genetics as some part of playing into our sexual orientation but for now, I'll say that no, sexual orientation is not determined at birth.

Should Churches Remain Exempt From Tax? - Yes.

Gun Control - I don't own a gun but I will say this.

People have the absolute right to carry a gun, in recognition of their law of their home country. They are obliged to hand guns over in areas where they may pose a risk.

There is no absolute correlation between gun violence in the U.S and the amount of guns. Gun Control does not reduce guns nor does having guns everywhere reduce crime. It is largely based on other factors such as poverty, education and so forth. A gun is a tool. People don't become raving psychopaths when they touch a gun for the first time.

Drinking Age - Stays the same.

Euthanasia - Allowed, but with care and proper assurance that the individual is not suffering from some sort of mental ailment that is making him medically depressed.

Medical Marijuana - No opinion, but legalizing it could reduce the spread of illegal marijauana and destroy the drug trade.

Prostitution - No opinion.

Tattoos and piercings in the workplace - Company's choice whether they deny based on bodily mutilation.

Standardized Tests - As a student, I can safely say that standardized tests are not the sole basis of a student's ability to function in the real world. The real world is about making the right decisions at the right time. Standardized tests can't imitate real life.

Bonus: Religious Standing - I'm Agnostic, even though my family does a mish-mash of other religions such as christianity and taoism.

Bonus: Immigration - All for it, except if you use illegal methods to enter the country.

 

[BiggieCheese]

I disagree with abortion. No matter the circumstance. It's murder no matter how early it is.

 

[CastoffCaptain]

How about this one:

People who think that using "a" in front of a vowel/vowel sound instead of "an" is correct English need to consult the nearest grammar primer.

 

[Lindah]

• Abortion - Restricted; mandatory for pregnant woman under the age of consent, for victims of rape, for when there is proven to be a higher risk for the mother to birth than to abort. Regret isn't a proper reasoning, of course, in the case of full grown adults. Still, when a woman truly, fully does not feel that she is ready to commit as a mother, to be a responsible parent, then sure-ish for the sake of the potential life of the child. This is the part where I'm up for debate/change of view. And also where the husband/spouse comes in
• The Death Penalty - If all else rehabilitation fails and the offender becomes a strain or excess load for the system, sure. For the proven guilty only!
• Animal Testing - Unfortunate, but on the technological level of today, yes. Maybe one day we'll use synthetic rats instead. O-or is that equally as bad.
• Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth? Environmental factors too have influence. Sexual Orientation's just that complicated. Still not a concious choice, though.
• Should Churches Remain Exempt from Taxes? No.
• Gun Control - Nope.
• Drinking Age (raised, lowered, remain the same?) Same.
• Euthanasia - Yes.
• Medical Marijuana - Sure. I hope I don't have to in the future though!
• Prostitution - Sure if regulated and safe.
• Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace - Up to the employer/hiring company, their rules and codes.
• Standardised Tests - Needs lots of tweaking? I don't really know a lot of this.
• Immigration - Through legal means sure; nationalisation, documents, etc.
• Fat Acceptance: I was young-er and gullible enough to buy into it. Yes, all the problems that I faced, stomach-bowel issues and else things, were my fault. But this movement did influence me, my young-er self, shaped my beliefs for some while. The body positivity part of it is nice; it had been for my confidence and self-esteem. The acceptance part however ultimately costed me the $, even went under x-ray! I bought into the notion that it was okay and beautiful being fat. Lots of controversy right here, but here in my experience. I became aware that it was ultimately untrue. That the movement, or at least the more radical articles that I unfortunately read and bought, used BMI to justify heavier people being healthier, pictures of plus sized models... with flawless skin, no stretch marks and beautiful faces mind you which painted such a strong image to me. And I didn't realise that people with metabolic issues and genetic tendencies to become overweight were the exception and not the norm, and that 250lbs/120kg and above were actually quite impossible under natural life conditions. Even if all of these are debatable and changable, I had a rude awakening. I realised that one side of the world was dying from obesity, heart disease, yet the other side was dying of starvation. With such a strong moral standpoint suddenly in my mind, I instantly went on to do all that I could to lose weight. I have, and will continue to do so. Yes, I finally feel healthier now, fresh-er, no more sluggish mornings (mostly). So no, I don't support much of this movement.
• Circumcision: Why. No.
• Cultural Appropriation: Bobblehead continent of Hawaii. Why is it a thing, actually? No one really has such problems in where I live. Different ethnicities wearing the traditional clothing of other ethnicities, partake in celebrations, of course at the same time show respect, heck sometimes even joining in in ceremonies. It's really not an issue, unless by cultural you mean religious appropriation. In that case, ya.
• Black Republicans: Uncle Tom. Apparently it counts as a controversy? Black people voting republican? Very 2016. And truthfully I'm just googling to add to this list of controversies..... No. There's nothing wrong with having different political views, and they don't define ethnicity.
• Father's Day: Huh. Small but rather vocal controversy for some woman to celebrate Father's Day due to having deadbeat fathers, needing instead an anti-Father's Day, or a Mother's Day part two. Uhm. Just don't celebrate Father's Day?
• Global Warming: Neutral. Some can debate whether it's real or not. Such doesn't matter. Just focus on present day reality of deforestation, mudslides, flash floods, species extinctions and sinking islands, things that definitely will be lethal in the long run.
• Flat Earth: Lots, and lots of models and maps. Each one has it's flaws, from how compasses would work, why the moon doesn't fall despite being denser and heavier than air and that gravity doesn't exist, the moon being inside the atmosphere, being a hologram, endless glacier surrounding... to hollow Earth, latitude-longitude how seasons work, stars... Thus far our current model of Earth works best, so we'll still teach that in our books for now. I'm open with this, but still leaning towards the globe.

I dug my own grave rip.

 

[Hall Kervean]

If you seriously believe that everytime there is an aboriton, you kill a life, then why aren't you being more morally upright for your beliefs. Why don't you go stop it? Go to your nearest abortion clinic and shut it down if you believe so. Per your beliefs, countries are killing hundreds of thousands of lives everyday, so go and stop it if you believe that's the case. No sane person should just protest about this supposed act of genocide.

There have been people who have gone to abortion clinics and shot abortion doctors before. Those people are still in the wrong.

 

[Hall Kervean]

How about this one:

People who think that using "a" in front of a vowel/vowel sound instead of "an" is correct English need to consult the nearest grammar primer.

And they said everyday heroes don't exist!

 

[acuite]

• Abortion: Your choice. I believe it should be legal for women who have been victims of rape.
• The Death Penalty: I believe if you killed someone, you should die aswell.
• Animal Testing: I don't agree with it. Animals aren't using the products.
• Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth?: Yes? No? I believe that it is developed throughout your life.
• Should Churches Remain Exempt from Taxes?: I don't know about this subject
• Gun Control: YEs. Yes. YES.
• Drinking Age: I think it should be 18. If you are old enough to determine the president, you should be old enough to drink.
• Euthanasia: I agree with it. If they are in pain and want it to end, let them do it.
• Medical Marijuana: Sure!
• Prostitution: I don't care, really.
• Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace: Let them do what they want. It's not hurting you.
• Standardised Tests: I don't like them.
• Bonus: Religious Standing (why/why don't you believe in what you believe?): I don't know what I believe.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I think euthanasia should be legal. Pain is a very unpleasant thing and should not be experienced by people.

Pain has many benefits to living, healthy people. But to those who are literally dying from it, they shouldn't experience it.

I personally think that while it should be legal, it should be 100% the choice of the person whose life is in question. Otherwise, it could be taken in a very bad direction.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

As for guns... gun control arguments make me want to scream and stab the crap out of a cardboard box. Guns, and all other weapons for that matter, are objects. They cannot be inherently evil or inherently good. Any actions taken with a weapon are purely the responsibility of the user. Good and evil exist in the hearts of men and women, and do not disappear in the absence of a blade or firearm. People have been killing each other in fistfights for millennia. Case and point.

Ugh, one would think that gamers at the very least would get the idea that not everyone using a weapon uses it for evil.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

Yep, I just brutally murdered a cardboard box with a pair of safety scissors. I probably need to calm down.

 

[The Gunrunner]

As for guns... gun control arguments make me want to scream and stab the crap out of a cardboard box. Guns, and all other weapons for that matter, are objects. They cannot be inherently evil or inherently good. Any actions taken with a weapon are purely the responsibility of the user. Good and evil exist in the hearts of men and women, and do not disappear in the absence of a blade or firearm. People have been killing each other in fistfights for millennia. Case and point.

Ugh, one would think that gamers at the very least would get the idea that not everyone using a weapon uses it for evil.

Hey, something I can respond to on my phone.

Before I start I'll first mention that I'm not for the strictest form of gun control, and I understand that a pistol may not be all you need in home defence. While not every gun out there is needed, saying all one needs is a pistol is a bit silly.

Though the argument against firearms isn't that guns have little men inside them that tell people to kill, it's that as weapons they're extremely powerful things that empower those who do want to kill. Over the years we've shifted from large armies, to disciplined armies accompanied with shock troops, mass warfare again, to (in modern warfare) the smallest organizations in our entire war history... That is, if you disregard just the restrictions of population. Now why is that? Well it's for the same reason as any other: Military technology (though not just in weapons, but I'm focusing on that to illustrate the point.) Weapons have advanced to where a single person could take out as many as there are bullets in the magazine, and firing modes fast enough to stop them from getting to him, and reload times quick enough that the need for a reload still isn't that big of a detriment. All prior technologies required collective power for the same killing potential, but these weapons empower individuals unlike anything else. The only comparison I myself can think of is plate armour during the past, but that was defensive.

My point is that while people can kill each other with fists, they can't do as much damage as with a gun, and different guns have different benefits. For example: Does someone need a sniper rifle? Balance it with the possible damage of a dangerous man getting one, who can kill from out of sight if they can use it. Does one need a mortar? Or a tank? None of these cause someone to go crazy, and civilians do have these things sometimes with no issue. However, like guns, that's not the point - The point is that if a dangerous person does get these things, they become hard to stop. And if you can think of a firearm that someone shouldn't be allowed to have, then you agree with some form of gun control.

The videogame debate thing was on the idea that games cause people to kill, not that dangerous people used games to kill. Granted it's not unrealistic that idiots out there think guns cause people to be violent violent, rather than empower violent people, but I don't think that's the majority.

A moment of silence for the cardboard box, which was murdered by scissors.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

If everyone was allowed to have every kind of weapon, then those who used their weapons for evil wouldn't get very far. Ever played one of those video games where you shoot a non-target and everybody takes you down? That's what I mean.

 

[The Gunrunner]

If everyone was allowed to have every kind of weapon, then those who used their weapons for evil wouldn't get very far. Ever played one of those video games where you shoot a non-target and everybody takes you down? That's what I mean.

Mildly drunk, so fair warning

That's under the assumption that someone knows where the other is. Again, I refer you to the example of the sniper rifle; that is a weapon designed to kill from out of sight. It doesn't matter if everyone has one, because the weapon is designed for you to kill from out of sight. Additionally, I would like to refer you to a Jim Jefferies quote: "... they threatened to **** my girlfriend, I was cut on the forehead. And gun people always say the same thing - "Ah, well imagine if you had a gun." Alright... well, I was naked at the time. I didn't have my holster. What world do you live in where you're constantly fuckin' ready? ..." Hyperbole and jokes aside, I agree quite strongly; people are not always ready. The advantage is to the one with initiative, and initiative is to who was planning to act first. You, like anyone else, do not carry a gun in their hand constantly ready for action. Like any weapon for civilians, the majority of its life is spent doing nothing in a holster, and therefore you likely won't expect the danger when it happens. Now consider the time to draw, and how many bullets can be given out in that time. Have you heard of theee... I think it is fifteen feet rule for police? It's a rule of distance between suspects, due to time to draw something as close-quarters designed as pistols, and that was when threatened under the possibilities of knives. People can close the distance when given the initial initiative, and it's ridiculous to think they can deliver bullets in that same time? I disagree, if you think it is. Now, would you argue that therefore someone should have the personal power to deal with these people when they come up? I would agree, but I have minimal tolerance or understanding for the /argument/ (not the person, the argument specifically) that one with a gun will somehow shoot him down before something bad happens in all situations for the reasons provided. That is a poor representation of the situation. Because of my position, I believe not all guns are justified, and because of the inherent danger and more complex responses to them that they should be restricted if possible.

If everyone had weapons, it empowers individuals to defend themselves. I agree entirely and understand that guns can have different defensive purposes, even types of automatics. However, the idea that if one had a weapon, then they are incapable of damage because others have automatics, that is silly. And, worst of all, if you think all guns fall under the same circumstances with this, you don't understand firearms very well. Again, I refer you to the sniper rifle example, which has happened in the past by the way. If you think some firearms shouldn't be allowed for public use, or that there should be some restrictions depending on the person, then you agree with some form of gun control.

Finally, as I reread your thing to do a proofread, though I think it may have been a slip on your part (I mean no offence in saying this btw) I'm going to respond to it without the given bone just in case - "If everyone was allowed to have every kind of weapon, then those who used their weapons for evil wouldn't get very far." personal portable mortar. Can't tell without timely calculations where it's coming from, can't safely stop it in an urban area without a precise location and a different type of weapon (personal firearms specifically,) so I disagree very strongly with this. There is also the fact that LMGs are considered a SUPPRESSION weapon, meaning suppression against personnel with different weapons due to ammunition count and (in some cases) rounds per minute. Again, I must disagree. There is also the argument against suppressed weapons, and some guns are built with internal suppressor like theee... Russian rifle I can't remember the name of. Vintorez or something? Then the honey badger. The argument against suppressor is that it has no defensive benefit, only offensive, though I'd reiterate to say the offensive benefit is more common than defensive. Should, assuming you agree, weapons with internally built suppressors be restricted from civilian use? If not that, should there be some check for those who want to own such a weapon? They give an aggressor a benefit that doesn't necessarily benefit a defender, at least in most cases.

I hope I didn't mess up somewhere, because I am very dizzy. I'll respond in the morning.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I stand my ground.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

For any of those who are remotely pro-gun I would not waste your time and energy on those who are anti-gun, especially in Europe, Canada or Oceania. The gun grabbers here in the US are just indoctrinated fools who depend on government for protection. Those who sacrifice liberty for a bit of security deserves neither.

They're not from a gun culture and never will understand it. Owning a firearm is a very alien concept and won't appreciate the notion of the right to protect your life and property until they realize the kind of power that holds when they're in a situation when a gun can save their own skin. Even in a place like Chicago or New York it takes anywhere 10 to 45 minutes (in extreme cases) for police to respond. In that amount of time you're either dead, dying or carted off to some human trafficking ring.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

For any of those who are remotely pro-gun I would not waste your time and energy on those who are anti-gun, especially in Europe, Canada or Oceania. The gun grabbers here in the US are just indoctrinated fools who depend on government for protection. Those who sacrifice liberty for a bit of security deserves neither.

They're not from a gun culture and never will understand it. Owning a firearm is a very alien concept and won't appreciate the notion of the right to protect your life and property until they realize the kind of power that holds when they're in a situation when a gun can save their own skin. Even in a place like Chicago or New York it takes anywhere 10 to 45 minutes (in extreme cases) for police to respond. In that amount of time you're either dead, dying or carted off to some human trafficking ring.

I don't personally carry a gun, but I do carry a 6 inch knife under my clothes. The day it saved me from three guys who were circling me like wolves will never leave my memory. I was later told that I should have called for help or something... but 1. they were too close, 2. phones take a while to unlock, and 3. nobody would have heard me.A weapon is more valuable than those who have never needed one realize.