Return to CreateDebate.comseriousbusiness • Join this debate community

Serious Business

ThePyg's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of ThePyg's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Ever been to Ireland? Very Capitalist and very prosper. Maybe it has more to do with the size than the economic make up.

As well, I guess you believe that there are no rich Jews, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc.

I mean, if that were true, you'd be onto something.

1 point

I love what most of your argument is based on, cause it sucks so bad.

anyway, racism, corruption, and police brutality are all flaws of the government. Sure, it seeps it's way into the economic status, but converting from capitalism to socialism isn't somehow going to make these government issues better. It seems that all of YOUR problems with Capitalism are just based on YOUR problems with people and government.

sure, there is unfairness, but giving government more power isn't going to solve our problems.

1 point

actually, majority of voters favor SOME KIND of health care reform. not Obama-care.

I favor health care reform, but certainly not Obama's kind.

1 point

actually, the whole slandering thing is made up for by having people on the network that support it and debate the slanders.

3 points

In all actuality, either justice doesn't exist or the means for obtaining justice doesn't exist.

Democracy is not a means of obtaining justice. We put the fate of everyone's lives into the majority's hands. And guess what, the majority is retarded.

2 points

1. Let me go over police protocol:

First of all, in order to make anything credible in court, a police officer would have to establish probable cause. A cop can't just search anyone based off of his intuition, despite what movies might say. If a cop felt that he could get drugs off of a black, he would need probable cause to search him in the first place. If not, EVERYTHING is thrown out of court. PC would be something like "DUI" or "when he opened his window a bunch of marijuana smoke hit me in the face".

Second, to approach someone at all he would need AT LEAST "reasonable situation" which must be presented in court or else that will be thrown out as well. Reasonable suspicion would be something like "hanging out behind a Wal-Mart at 3 AM".

Third, the "stop" i was referring to was a traffic stop. This is because most individual drug busts are made on traffic stops because it's usually easiest to know if they are holding or not. What happens is an officer will often become a lot more aware of his suspect if the suspect is rude or not (experience from ride alongs). pertaining to 4, it's not from racism, it's from experience.

2. Canadian Pot vs. Cocaine and Heroin all the way from Columbia going through the Mexican border... hmm. I do understand that border enforcement is needed in Canada as well, but this does not mean that Mexico needs less.

3. Your first stats compared black drop outs to white drop outs. WTF did I say about that in the first place, pertaining to if that is the case. I already rebutted the stats before they were even presented.

2 points

1. I've worked with cops for 4 years and suspicion of people is based on the attitude of the suspect. If blacks are suspected more than whites, this is because the blacks that are stopped have much ruder attitudes towards cops (I know, I've seen it first hand).

2. Drug trafficking, prostitute smuggling and even some diseases are coming MUCH MORE often through the Southern border than through the Northern border. Immigration is one of many issues when it comes to enforcing borders.

3. With the fact that African Americans have a 50% high school drop out rate, I find it very hard to believe that those who do make it through High School find it harder to get a job than a white who doesn't get a high school degree at all. This I need some kind of study done (credible, of course). If so, there could be a correlation, but correlation does not prove causation. And 1 out of so many other reasons for not being able to get a job hardly helps at all, either.

Life is built on attitude. It is safe to say that Whites have a much different presentation of respect towards another. You also have to consider environmental factors. Most white, high school drop outs live in the south where jobs are more spread out than in areas where many black drop outs live (Southern living creates many more jobs than industrial poor areas). If a Southerner drops out of high school, he can still basically work at any of the motel, hotels, inns, convenient stores, or even as a helper at a house (painter, carpenter, no one cares about credentials in the South). In ghettos and projects, it's more demanding of qualifications. Whites, as well as blacks, find it much harder to get a job in these areas if they don't have the right education for it. Plus, most jobs in industrial areas require education. And, since blacks take up only 13% of the population even less of them are going to have jobs.

2 points

So basically, once minorities can get their shit together white people will no longer be racist?

That's... retarded.

If you fail at life, it is YOUR fault. Don't try and justify yourself just because you have a different skin color.

I'm glad you brought out these statistics,though. I used to get labeled as a racist for pointing out that African Americans have a 50% high school drop out rate.

1 point

Well, the race card has always been a retarded ploy to try and suggest that black people are never at fault.

But at least they can't blame the man. Well, those like Feracon and the Black Panthers will try to say that Obama doesn't have any real power or that he's only half black; but for most, it's really hard to blame "the man" when "the man" is black.

1 point

Ah, yes, NOW it's cool when the media is favorable towards the government.

4 points

The Fairness Doctrine is government censorship.

We're not saying that NBC or ABC HAS to air the ad... but we can still criticize them for it. Criticism is the key component for free speech. Without it, we have anarchy.

2 points

Actually, yes, Fox News runs Obamacare ads MORE than anti-obamacare ads. In fact, I don't ever remember seeing an anti-obamacare ad on Fox News... but there's bound to be a couple...

I don't know about ABC, but NBC is very well known for rejecting ads that they find Right Leaning. Hell, they refused to air an ad that suggested that we should send aid to the troops because it "might be considered a Political Ad". Right, because NBC is soooo not into politics.

Fox is about money and ratings, which is why they always air opposition; they don't give a fuck, as long as they got money Which is what makes them so awesome ;)

1 point

Under your description, it's NOT anarchy... you basically described Marx's dream.

Anarchy is elimination of State, authority, and government. Basically, any structure of laws or authority would be anti-anarchy.

This does not guarantee the elimination of Capitalism. If we talk about Laissez Faire Capitalism, all it is is unregulated business. Under Anarchy, this is most possible. This would mean that anyone can run their own business... they just have to keep safe from thieves and random jackasses with bombs who do hate business.

Anarchy works in the sense that everyone is left to themselves. You protect your own shit, there's no government to protect you. No contracts either, that's only under "Anarcho-Capitalism". Basically, nothing to enforce anything but yourself. All's fair, but all sucks. But, it's completely fair and can basically work. No one's discriminated against because there is no authority to discriminate.

Anarchy's only bad if you wish to have order...

1 point

I did watch the interview... he has some points, but it didn't seem like he actually had a plan... more like a dream.

1 point

No, not more regulation. The fact was, corporations were already regulated. In fact, the overseers to the financial businesses were ENCOURAGING bad loans, which caused the major failure in most of our economy. Bad loans are bad for business. What government needs to focus on is placing their goals more on making the business stronger, instead of trying to help people who are too poor to afford a home.

What we need is oversight with corporatist intention instead of socialist intention.

1 point

Capitalism with Corporate oversight would be better.

It's pretty close to what we have now, except what we had WAS regulated capitalism... and it caused the Recession.

What we need is government, if they're going to overseer Capitalism, is do it with Corporatist intent. That is, making sure Corporations make decisions that keep them going. Of course, this being Corporations as major as the banks. Car companies... screw them.

1 point

well, in the non-pacifist sense, is it winnable?

Like, we won WW2 even though we lost soldiers. That way. Is it winnable?

Militarily, it surely is (that's actually why I said "militarily". Because there's always something that gets fucked up).

2 points

Militarily they surely are. The problem is that our main goal (Iraqi Freedom) is very hard to accomplish, especially with the limited amount of troops that we have. Too many people in reserve, not enough on the battlefield. Also, there seems to be a lack of focus on attacking the main al-Qaeda leaders. We also need to focus on educating the Iraqi people. It's good that we give them care packages, but we also need to educate them and possibly eliminate most of their media services (since all they do is show films like Redacted and Fahrenheit 9/11 and quote people in America who say we're a torture nation as recruitment tools). We need to get the CIA more involved (if they aren't already, technically, we can't know about shit like that).

But as I said, militarily it's pretty easy. In fact, having both Iraq and Afghanistan gives us a major advantage if we ever go into Iran. And, it'll be good if we declared a World War. That way, we'll fix the economy while completely obliterating the enemy.

1 point

yeah, that was uncalled for but i guess i can't expect a better retort than that.

how sad.

1 point

yes, I forgot how much words can hurt Mother Earth's feelings.

sorry bout that.

1 point

mainly because you act as if the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.

and i forgot to say who said that:

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko who's the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

1 point

you're the one who said "Don't you dare mock recycling" or w/e. As if it was that big of a deal that you needed to scold me.

1 point

Doubt is actually very reasonable, especially when someone is willing to put more hysteria into an idea than they would into a well known fact where people are starving and dying in gutters.

Sorry if i got bigger problems.

the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.

The points are simple. I don't care about which party believes in what. I disagree with Republicans on many things, and sometimes even think that they care more about corporations than they do about our lives. But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it. So why should there be so many unnecessary regulations and restrictions that only hurt us if we got bigger problems, like, failing banks and housing market.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

1 point

oooo, i'm so sorry i "bad mouthed" recycling.

I guess I better censor myself in a debate. don't wanna hurt mother earth's feelings (she's a schizophrenic bitch if you ask me).

1 of 9 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]