[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Racism or not, it doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants shouldn't be in the country.coolbeans90
That is not a fact at all. We should have open-borders, and we shouldn't prevent anyone from entering this country.
There are people that we should prevent from entering this country. Those who pose a threat to people within the borders. It is why borders exist in the first place.
Our justice system is built from the fundamentals of "innocent until proven guilty." If someone has a history, it doesn't matter. However, I'm not saying we should allow known terrorists to enter.
[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="Democratik"] countries in europe as far more educated than we are, and they are producing great minds in higher quantities. That is, if were talking about more scientists, engineers etc It wasnt that democratic. if i recall, not every citizen got to vote. European students are not more educated in we are. As I've mentioned in another thread, German students really only retain 10% of what they learn, and this is a growing concern for Germany and countries elsewhere. Also, in Athens everyone except the slaves could vote because they were not considered people. Democracy means "people-rule." However, the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. The difference is that 51% can't take away the rights of the lower 50% because of the constitution. Furthermore, we elect officials to represent us, whereas they didn't. your tangent about the USA aside, a democracy with slaves isnt a true democracy. it is very easy though for a democracy to ruin its self. Which is why I advocate we move towards a system similar to that of a Scandinavian country. That 10% (assuming what youre saying is true, I have no way of knowing one way or the other) is definitely meaningful in comparison to our country. But I dont think Germany is a shining example of what a nation should try to be. I would never want to live in Germany. Why isn't a democracy with slaves a true democracy? All the citizens of Athens could vote. The slaves were not citizens and could not vote. If I go to Norway, I can't vote unless I'm a citizen, so does this mean that they aren't a true democracy? Absolutely not.
[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Actually, thus far it seems my arguments have been really good. I havent seen anyone actually refute them. I justified taxation, and we have empirical evidence that a strong state in which the citizens control most of it tends to be a good life. It seems that a lot of the people oppossing me, excluding two that I can think of, have resorted to name calling and insults. Which generally proves even more that I have a very strong argument.theone86
Well, let us see how strong your arguments are. We shall begin with the thesis presented here "that a strong state in which the citizens control most it tends to be a good life." This is certainly not true. The Athenian Republic of Plato's time was very centralized, but the populace was deeply ignorant. They had Socrates executed because they didn't like the questions he posed under the reasoning that "he was corrupting the youth." Because of their hedonist ways, they allowed corruption to seep into their government, and it became just as the Roman Republic was, power-hungry, self-serving, and deceitful. Ere before long, it became a tyranny when the populace elected Peisistratus to power to fend off the Spartans. It is not true that a strong government makes life good, but that the citizens are fair and just, that they are wise and rational. Education is not needed for these things, but the clear distinctions of virtue and vice are.
LOL, you have a very rudimentary understanding of what happened to Socrates. Socrates was not executed because of uneducated masses, he was executed because of the elite who wanted to support hegemony, sophism, and religious fundamentalists who were threatened by what he said.
This is true also, but the people, largely due to their ignorance, were fearful of what he taught the youth. They didn't like him breaking apart the norms of society as he did. And I don't appreciate being told that I have a "rudimentary understanding" of Socrates. I've read the Republic by Plato, and I've read the known histories regarding Socrates. My post regarding him was indeed rudimentary, but it is not a reflection of my understanding of him.
[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="Democratik"] education is necessary, and I was referencing social democracies. I probably should have made that more clear. but the people as a whole didnt have that much say in those times. Education is necessary, but public education is not. The greatest minds of the world had never stepped one foot in a public school, and looked what they offered the world: Newton, his three laws of motion; Aurelius, his Meditations; Descartes, his Principia Philosophiae. I could list off numerous names, and they would all of them contribute evenly to my argument. Also, Athens was a democracy, and Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Euclid, ect, had a lot to say. countries in europe as far more educated than we are, and they are producing great minds in higher quantities. That is, if were talking about more scientists, engineers etc It wasnt that democratic. if i recall, not every citizen got to vote. European students are not more educated in we are. As I've mentioned in another thread, German students really only retain 10% of what they learn, and this is a growing concern for Germany and countries elsewhere. Also, in Athens everyone except the slaves could vote because they were not considered people. Democracy means "people-rule." However, the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. The difference is that 51% can't take away the rights of the lower 50% because of the constitution. Furthermore, we elect officials to represent us, whereas they didn't.
[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Actually, thus far it seems my arguments have been really good. I havent seen anyone actually refute them. I justified taxation, and we have empirical evidence that a strong state in which the citizens control most of it tends to be a good life. It seems that a lot of the people oppossing me, excluding two that I can think of, have resorted to name calling and insults. Which generally proves even more that I have a very strong argument. Well, let us see how strong your arguments are. We shall begin with the thesis presented here "that a strong state in which the citizens control most it tends to be a good life." This is certainly not true. The Athenian Republic of Plato's time was very centralized, but the populace was deeply ignorant. They had Socrates executed because they didn't like the questions he posed under the reasoning that "he was corrupting the youth." Because of their hedonist ways, they allowed corruption to seep into their government, and it became just as the Roman Republic was, power-hungry, self-serving, and deceitful. Ere before long, it became a tyranny when the populace elected Peisistratus to power to fend off the Spartans. It is not true that a strong government makes life good, but that the citizens are fair and just, that they are wise and rational. Education is not needed for these things, but the clear distinctions of virtue and vice are. education is necessary, and I was referencing social democracies. I probably should have made that more clear. but the people as a whole didnt have that much say in those times. Education is necessary, but public education is not. The greatest minds of the world had never stepped one foot in a public school, and looked what they offered the world: Newton, his three laws of motion; Aurelius, his Meditations; Descartes, his Principia Philosophiae. I could list off numerous names, and they would all of them contribute evenly to my argument. Also, Athens was a democracy, and Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Euclid, ect, had a lot to say.
[QUOTE="Democratik"] Actually, thus far it seems my arguments have been really good. I havent seen anyone actually refute them. I justified taxation, and we have empirical evidence that a strong state in which the citizens control most of it tends to be a good life. It seems that a lot of the people oppossing me, excluding two that I can think of, have resorted to name calling and insults. Which generally proves even more that I have a very strong argument. Well, let us see how strong your arguments are. We shall begin with the thesis presented here "that a strong state in which the citizens control most it tends to be a good life." This is certainly not true. The Athenian Republic of Plato's time was very centralized, but the populace was deeply ignorant. They had Socrates executed because they didn't like the questions he posed under the reasoning that "he was corrupting the youth." Because of their hedonist ways, they allowed corruption to seep into their government, and it became just as the Roman Republic was, power-hungry, self-serving, and deceitful. Ere before long, it became a tyranny when the populace elected Peisistratus to power to fend off the Spartans. It is not true that a strong government makes life good, but that the citizens are fair and just, that they are wise and rational. Education is not needed for these things, but the clear distinctions of virtue and vice are.
[QUOTE="Democratik"] Thats not doing enough to combat poverty. We need social justice, then they wont be as poor, and theyll have an easier path out of poverty. This is a legitimate government responsibilityDemocratik
Giving people handouts isn't going to end poverty. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Your a delusional **** retard.
one of the hand outs needs to be better education This is a terrible thesis. You're going to need to be more specific than this.
If you truly believe that, then get off internet forums and go do something about it. Go to the nearest homeless shelter and help them out. Give away most of your paycheck to charities. If not, the shut the **** up
Democratik
Not effective enough. Im influencing debate, and im going to vote for left wing policies that bring actual security, unlike charities. None of the arguments you have proposed thus far have worked in your favor. Perhaps, you should do a little revising before you start voting, considering that your arguments have been illogical and wobbly.
Log in to comment