Jianna Merrowmere
|
Debate RulesI would like to suggest that all debate threads should be approved by an administrator. Then the administrator should set the debate rules for the subject matter. Then decide also based on subject matter what age can post as a debator and what age perhaps can read and ask questions.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
Age limitations are a big no-no and I think that anybody on this site will agree with me. Supressing the voice of teens will not help you. Also, I'm pretty sure anybody can lie about their age. I'm not too keen on having the admin have to approve a debate. I can see it if the topic was flat-out idiotic, but that's a mod's durty anyway.
I say no.
|
Rive Caedo
|
Unfortunately this is the vast wide internet. It takes precisely zero effort for someone to lie about their age. All that would occur if we did set an age limit for a thread (which, as I said in the other thread - I feel is a really bad idea even at face value), is that those under that age limit that wanted to participate in the debate threads would create a second account and say they were 24.
If there WERE a way to verifiably determine people's ages - then the creator of the debate thread would be able to set the limit for their thread - not administration.
Debate threads are... somewhat approved by administration. In that we'll remove a thread if it greatly overlaps with another or if they degenerate into a flame war (although we try to guide them back on course before that occurs).
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
Just a suggestion. What do you think I need help with Sirak?
|
Xander Vos
|
As has been demonstrated in the past, if a debate becomes too out of hand, it will be put to an end.
Age restrictions are, ironically, childish in my opinion.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | Just a suggestion. What do you think I need help with Sirak? |
I'm still curious as to why you brought this up.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
There are many things in life that young people are not allowed to do. (Though they usually manage to get around them.) There are age restrictions on movies, drinking, pornography viewing, voting, age of consent for sexual intercourse to name some. There is even an age limit on the video games young people can play depending on the content. The internet is like the Wild West. There is little regulation and much of the subject matter is just wide open. I wonder how many of the young people on this site could honestly say that in school they discuss abortion, whether the woman or child should live or die and all of the intricacies that go along with it.
Obviously there are many adults like myself who consider some subject matter inappropriate such as those I posted above. None of us believe that those restrictions are "childish." We believe that they are appropriate.
|
Xander Vos
|
Perhaps she feels that the topic of abortion is to adult for small children. Whilst I don't disagree with her, I don't think any of the users on this board are small children.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
It is true that young people can't do as many things as older folks can. One right that I'll fight to the death for, however, is freedom of speech. When they take that away, no more Sirak Sazen. You'll find my body at the bottom of a cliff.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
As you can see from my last post, is it small children that can't play video games with mature content? Or is it you and Sirak? You may anyways, but that doesn't mean you should or are supposed to.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
So... we're not supposed to voice our opinons? 
|
Jiub
|
She has already expressed that she doesn't think people under 16 should be participating in abortion debates. I would say that if you don't want to debate with people under 16 you are on the wrong site, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I'm 18 as I've said before, but I still don't think we need to exclude underage people. I must say that the younger crowd does seem to get upset easier and flame more, but I think that a 3 day ban for the next person to call another person an idiot or a word similar to idiot or just anything that is definitely there to flame (just insinuating someone is an idiot cannot be banned as to some degree you do that when you disagree with someone) as a means of debating should start to solve that problem. Not that I think we need a ban rampage or any permanent bans, just something to remind people we have rules here.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
It wouldn't be fair of me to say who, but I do know quite a few young people on this site. I know of two both pro-choice who will no longer participate after being insulted and called names. One of them came to me just today. Is that right? A site in my opinion shouldn't take on a primary viewpoint. There are debate sites specifically for that. Some that lean right, some left. Some are really wild. That is what they are specificlly for and are populated primarily by adults. I belong to several.
But this is supposed to be a Star Wars site where young people come to enjoy themselves role playing Star Wars. Not a red state/blue state debate arena, where teenagers are made to feel terrible by their peers calling them idiot and pro-death.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
Feel free to name these "younger" people and the ones who will no longer participate after being insulted and called names. I understand where you're coming from. Just keep in mind that not many people really take this seriously. It's all in good fun.
|
Butler_Swan
|
Sirak, there is a clear and present danger in presenting these matters to young children. It may scar them for life, and thus when there is such a clear and present danger, the first ammendment is no longer applicable.
Actually...not really. I just wanted to say something using the "clear and present danger" clause.
|
Rive Caedo
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | But this is supposed to be a Star Wars site where young people come to enjoy themselves role playing Star Wars. Not a red state/blue state debate arena, where teenagers are made to feel terrible by their peers calling them idiot and pro-death. |
That's why it's waaaaaay down there at the very bottom and the roleplaying and general discussion boards are waaaaay up at the top.
In fact, I think you've already gotten what you've wanted before you even asked for it. We used to have the political topics up in the general discussion section. Korus made the push for changing that and we finally did.
Now it's easily avoidable by people not interested in such things.
| Butler_Swan wrote: | | Actually...not really. I just wanted to say something using the "clear and present danger" clause. |
What we really need to worry about is the Patriot Games that could ensue if we allowed the Sum of All Fears about "think of the children" to make us issue Executive Orders and thus issue some... Hunt for Red October.
Gah, I lost it at the end there. But I was doing pretty well 
|
Jiub
|
| Butler_Swan wrote: | Sirak, there is a clear and present danger in presenting these matters to young children. It may scar them for life, and thus when there is such a clear and present danger, the first ammendment is no longer applicable.
Actually...not really. I just wanted to say something using the "clear and present danger" clause. |
 I wish I had thought of that first. Oh well, maybe now any time I do something bad I can just say that it is because I was introduced to the topic of abortion at a young age (I think I was about 10, though there weren't any thorough discussions about it) and that really messed me up.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
The debate of Pepsi vs. Coke will scar you for life. 
|
Jiub
|
Don't get me started on that! I still have nightmares about the "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
| Sirak Sazen wrote: | | The debate of Pepsi vs. Coke will scar you for life. |
Exactly what I am talking about. Young people feeling insulted is not a matter for Pepsi vs. Coke commentary. And 'Idiot' is not all in good fun. Nor is goading someone repeatedly with the'pro-death' label.
Bottom or top of the page, they are still open for anyone to engage.
No I won't name the two of them. I do wish they would speak their minds though.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
If you don't want to name the two people or those who you consider too young, that's fine. You brought it up. Calling somebody pro-death was actually a legitimate argument that forced pro-choicers to defend themselves and pro-lifers (who were involved) to explain why they felt as they did.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
I don't think so. Pro-death was meant to upset people and it did. It is obvious that was what it was for. Forcing someone to defend themselves? Both sides should defend themselves not just one. It's like labeling pro-life for the fetus only/mothers have no right to life to all those who are right to lifers Or saying repeatedly, Right to life for the fetus only in place of pro-life every time. Anti-mothers group.
|
Rive Caedo
|
I wouldn't really call "pro-death" a legitimate argument. The same way I wouldn't say calling someone against abortion legality "anti-freedom" is a legitimate argument. It's name calling - it doesn't further the debate for either side.
Anyway. The point remains: I think we do have a fairly rational body of moderators here. No, we can't stop everyone from having "hurt feelings" - but we do our best to make sure people stay respectful. You're just as guilty of being disrespectful and belittling as anyone else in that thread, so I fail to see why you think that removing Invictus from the debate would solve the problem. Except in making your arguments more prominent and undisputed.
This is - as far as things on the internet can be - a "safe" place for people of all ages to interact. They are free to come and go as they please and only participate in what they wish. If the parents of that minor do not wish them to participate in such a community - then it's their responsibility to make that clear (this has happened in the past).
If we do not provide this place: then minors are more likely to migrate to the darker - less respectful - less moderated - less safe corners of the internet to discuss such issues.
Mental age is more important than physical age. Especially on the internet - where your words are all that matters.
So no, I'm sorry - this won't happen. Not just because it's not feasible - but because it would REMOVE a bastion of safety for minors on the internet.
We will, of course, continue to have our "PG-13" policy in place. Which insures that any minors participating in the debates will not be subject to graphic abortion images that pro-life people tend to use on other forums. Or the strong language that both sides tend to degenerate into.
I really think that's the best we can do. And the best we should do for that matter.
I do, however, agree that the debates have been getting too heated at times. That's calmed down in the past few days and I'll continue to make efforts to ensure it stays at that level.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
It was just a suggestion. The call of course belongs to the admins here. I have begun to call for COPA agreements on my site when I suspect someone is underage.
But that is my choice.
|
Rive Caedo
|
COPPA only applies to children under 13 - and that matter would rest with MyFreeForums anyway - not us.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
I want to know when someone that young is on site. So I ask if I believe someone is very young.
|
Rive Caedo
|
But what purpose does that serve? Either:
1. You know they're young (how does that affect things?)
2. You know they're young and you remove their account
3. They lie to you
And then situation 2 results in:
A. They don't come back (positive result - I suppose)
B. They come back under a different name (no result)
C. They migrate to less safe site than yours (negative result)
It seems better to rely on the minors parents to monitor them. Unless, of course, you're running an adult-oriented site (as in, explicit).
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
No it is a Star Wars site. Nothing explicit about it. I don't remove them either. I want to know that they have their parents permission to be there.
|
Xander Vos
|
As this itself is turning into a debate, should this be moved?
|
Crozeus
|
To be honest, I was very surprised when I discovered Invictus was only 13, he writes like someone far older.
Clearly everyone here is very intelligent, and I don't think there should be anything stopping anyone from debating due to age... but when you are a young person (like me  ) debating on an issue of abortion I think it is reasonable for them to accept that using God for every argument is not the best course of action.
They have to accept that people far older than them have more life experience, and generally know more on subjects, especially ones like abortion. As a fifteen year old I know I have never experienced anything remotely appropriate to the subject, and neither has Sirak, Rectum () or Invictus... and neither Sam nor Drake or Splinter either.
Face it, we're young guys. And we don't know just how we are going to feel if something like that came up in our lives.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
Very well said Crozeus. I was criticized for the legality argument, but the 'Because God says so' argument isn't anymore valid.
|
Crozeus
|
Anymore? It never was.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
I think I worded that wrongly. Perhaps I should say neither is the 'because God says so argument either.
|
Lord Invictus
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | I don't think so. Pro-death was meant to upset people and it did. It is obvious that was what it was for. Forcing someone to defend themselves? Both sides should defend themselves not just one. It's like labeling pro-life for the fetus only/mothers have no right to life to all those who are right to lifers Or saying repeatedly, Right to life for the fetus only in place of pro-life every time. Anti-mothers group. |
Actually, it was meant to push the pro-choicers to the defensive. However, it is quite obvious that, as abortion is legal, the pro-choice crowd is ALWAYS on the defensive. But it was an argument supported by fact (killing human beings= putting them in a state of death, right?)
On the subject of not subjecting minors to graphic images of abortion, death, etc. I believe that, if it is topic related, the posting of such images (as long as they are not illegal/pornographic) should be permitted so long as a warning label of sorts is added, or a description of the image (ex: "Image of a child after an abortion" or: "Warning: May be considered inappropriate for some children/adults").
On the intended topic of the board, whilst I do admit to being an immature moron, it is unrelated to my age. If you want to ban me, can I at least be banned for some reasonable offense?
Also, my presence on Rebels doesn't violate myfreeforum agreements (I am 13).
| Quote: | | To be honest, I was very surprised when I discovered Invictus was only 13, he writes like someone far older. |
Why thankyou, Crozeus. I feel inclined to give you a compliment in return, but it would probably involve guessing your age and be rather offensive.
| Quote: | | but when you are a young person (like me Smile) debating on an issue of abortion I think it is reasonable for them to accept that using God for every argument is not the best course of action. |
Well... I have left out religious points for the majority of the debate. Perhaps I stated something in the "is abortion wrong" debate about personal opinions, but, for legal purposes, I stay away from that.
Also, though we must accept they have more life experience, that in no way decreases the validity of our points. They should still have to recognize such points, just as we recognize theirs.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
I don't believe that I mentioned banning. I mentioned restricting. There is a big difference in the definition of the meaning of those two words.
You frequently mention the religious argument. Not just once in awhile either.
No one said that you were a moron either. That is a very distasteful word actually. Age and life experience don't invalitude wholly what you say, but the perspective is not as sound as an adult's. Accept our points? Where do you think you did that?
|
Sirak Sazen
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | I want to know when someone that young is on site. So I ask if I believe someone is very young. |
Pedophile....
|
Lord Invictus
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | I don't believe that I mentioned banning. I mentioned restricting. There is a big difference in the definition of the meaning of those two words.
You frequently mention the religious argument. Not just once in awhile either.
No one said that you were a moron either. That is a very distasteful word actually. Age and life experience don't invalitude wholly what you say, but the perspective is not as sound as an adult's. Accept our points? Where do you think you did that? |
1) It's essentially banning. I'm a seasoned member, by some standards, of this site who is now restricted to inactive roleplaying and video-game chat. Wow.
2) I actually didn't. I mentioned "The morality of abortion depends entirely on personal beliefs and ethics" but no more than that. I dare you to sift through all 129 (or however many there are) pages discussing abortion and find any more than that statement. In fact, I oftentimes scold pro-lifers when they mention religion. For the most part, the debates remain secular.
3) Moron. Idiot. They're somewhat offensive insults, not curses: don't freak out. Besides, personal experiences don't matter at all in a debate. Nobody's life matters in the debate. Nor do opinionated thoughts or speculation. What matters is the logical conclusion derived from facts that all must indefinitely reach. In that sense, points I present are just as valid as yours. I accept your points in that I actually read your posts and take them into consideration, then I write responses to each point via numerical listing.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
I don't accept being called names. Period. It is unacceptable to me. And when I do it I apologize typically. Name-calling has no place in the debate.
Actually personal experience, age etc do matter in a debate. You can say they don't and I shall say that they do, and never the twain shall meet I am afraid.
You don't really believe that you are not opinionated do you? Self-honesty also comes with age usually. I know I am. I have strong opinions about everything and I know it and do not deny it.
|
Lord Invictus
|
I have opinions, but I argue on fact for those opinions. Arguing on an opinion does nothing but restate an idea, yet not a point.
There is no place for personal experiences in a debate. Because you're 30-some years old, you are not the all-knowing big-brother-watching dictator who defines undeniable truth. Nor am I (... but I still have hope....). If you cannot refute a point of mine, then don't begin indulging yourself in ageist quibbles and insults about how my opinion isn't quite as valid as yours due to my youth.
A point is a point, a fact is a fact, and an opinion is an opinion, regardless of who they belong to.
And, I'll say it again, 2+2=5
|
Jiub
|
You know, I was thinking. If we were to restrict the age on the abortion debate around here to 16, I think that would just restrict Invictus, Sam, and Sirak. Sirak and Invictus are the only ones who regularly take up the pro-life end of the debate.
Then we would have a couple of people saying they agree with abortion, Rive saying that he agrees with it under certain conditions, and maybe me adding in my apathetic, occasional, ever-changing opinions. You might as well change it to the "talk about how much everyone likes abortion with occasional dissenters" thread. What a name.
Anyways, I don't even know if anyone still supports that age limit idea, but as I said before, this is supposed to be a family friendly site. If you don't think something is appropriate, inform the moderators or admins. Otherwise, discuss it or ignore it.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | I don't accept being called names. Period. It is unacceptable to me. And when I do it I apologize typically. Name-calling has no place in the debate.
Actually personal experience, age etc do matter in a debate. You can say they don't and I shall say that they do, and never the twain shall meet I am afraid.
You don't really believe that you are not opinionated do you? Self-honesty also comes with age usually. I know I am. I have strong opinions about everything and I know it and do not deny it. |
/endtopic
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
| Lord Invictus wrote: | I have opinions, but I argue on fact for those opinions. Arguing on an opinion does nothing but restate an idea, yet not a point.
There is no place for personal experiences in a debate. Because you're 30-some years old, you are not the all-knowing big-brother-watching dictator who defines undeniable truth. Nor am I (... but I still have hope....). If you cannot refute a point of mine, then don't begin indulging yourself in ageist quibbles and insults about how my opinion isn't quite as valid as yours due to my youth.
A point is a point, a fact is a fact, and an opinion is an opinion, regardless of who they belong to.
And, I'll say it again, 2+2=5 |
I continue to disagree with you. As do all other adults I spoke with regarding this issue accept for Rive.
Ageist quibbles. How different it was when you wanted to say 'minors are above the law'... There is nothing to support that point of view. A point is a point a fact is a fact, and an opinion is valid when it is supported. Your age seems incapable of realizing that. The correct word is maturity. Some realizations come with maturity. Another good example is 'criminals should face the firing squad', which you qualify with realistic and idealistic which is ludicrous. You believe it knowing it isn't applicable. A position that is not supportable.
Only in one of your arguments have you supplied any source to back you up. Fox News, a source that is clearly biased. Not once have you presented any evidence that supports your supposed 'facts', which are in reality your opinions and not necessarily fact at all. I have seen no encyclopedia (typically written by professional researchers who DO search out facts), law dictionary or text, regular dictionary or text, or agency such as the United Nations reports, science journals that support or prove any of your opinions, supposed facts, or points. Not once.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
The opinion of minors is just as important as anybody else's. Discrimination helps nobody.
|
Rediker
|
Unless the source lines up with your opinion, it's biased. 
|
Lord Invictus
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | Lord Invictus wrote: | I have opinions, but I argue on fact for those opinions. Arguing on an opinion does nothing but restate an idea, yet not a point.
There is no place for personal experiences in a debate. Because you're 30-some years old, you are not the all-knowing big-brother-watching dictator who defines undeniable truth. Nor am I (... but I still have hope....). If you cannot refute a point of mine, then don't begin indulging yourself in ageist quibbles and insults about how my opinion isn't quite as valid as yours due to my youth.
A point is a point, a fact is a fact, and an opinion is an opinion, regardless of who they belong to.
And, I'll say it again, 2+2=5 |
I continue to disagree with you. As do all other adults I spoke with regarding this issue accept for Rive.
Ageist quibbles. How different it was when you wanted to say 'minors are above the law'... There is nothing to support that point of view. A point is a point a fact is a fact, and an opinion is valid when it is supported. Your age seems incapable of realizing that. The correct word is maturity. Some realizations come with maturity. Another good example is 'criminals should face the firing squad', which you qualify with realistic and idealistic which is ludicrous. You believe it knowing it isn't applicable. A position that is not supportable.
Only in one of your arguments have you supplied any source to back you up. Fox News, a source that is clearly biased. Not once have you presented any evidence that supports your supposed 'facts', which are in reality your opinions and not necessarily fact at all. I have seen no encyclopedia (typically written by professional researchers who DO search out facts), law dictionary or text, regular dictionary or text, or agency such as the United Nations reports, science journals that support or prove any of your opinions, supposed facts, or points. Not once. |
1) I said a minor is, within reason, above the law. Can you actually read my posts, or are you just trying to throw together something to insult me. The "within reason" portion was stating the following: if an infant *somehow* commits a crime, they won't be charged. I do actually believe this is extended to age seven (by age seven you should know how to act). If I were saying a seventeen year-old were above the law whilst an 18 year old wasn't, THAT would be insane.
2) On the death penalty, I can hardly understand your own rambling. From the few phrases I could see, it is now common knowledge that you blatantly and malignantly ignored my entire post. My ENTIRE POST.
3) So Fox News is biased, but CNN and World News aren't? Oh, and atheist's blogs and pro-choice.org are great sources too. You either accept all sources of information and take them into consideration, or you remain ignorant of that which you don't WANT to acknowledge. Quite obviously, you are of the latter variety.
4) Much of my fact is supported by common sense rather than internet sources. All I've stated is that a fetus is human and living. Nobody disagrees as it is simply common sense. Just look up the definition of a fetus (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=fetus .... see? Animal embryo after a period of time. It is obvious. Animal=in this case, human. Embryo= cells=living). It's really not that hard to think that through. Perhaps you haven't seen my step-by-step map of how to logically come to my conclusion? I've posted it several hundred times, but people still seem not to see it. I wonder why.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
| Lord Invictus wrote: | | Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | Lord Invictus wrote: | I have opinions, but I argue on fact for those opinions. Arguing on an opinion does nothing but restate an idea, yet not a point.
There is no place for personal experiences in a debate. Because you're 30-some years old, you are not the all-knowing big-brother-watching dictator who defines undeniable truth. Nor am I (... but I still have hope....). If you cannot refute a point of mine, then don't begin indulging yourself in ageist quibbles and insults about how my opinion isn't quite as valid as yours due to my youth.
A point is a point, a fact is a fact, and an opinion is an opinion, regardless of who they belong to.
And, I'll say it again, 2+2=5 |
I continue to disagree with you. As do all other adults I spoke with regarding this issue accept for Rive.
Ageist quibbles. How different it was when you wanted to say 'minors are above the law'... There is nothing to support that point of view. A point is a point a fact is a fact, and an opinion is valid when it is supported. Your age seems incapable of realizing that. The correct word is maturity. Some realizations come with maturity. Another good example is 'criminals should face the firing squad', which you qualify with realistic and idealistic which is ludicrous. You believe it knowing it isn't applicable. A position that is not supportable.
Only in one of your arguments have you supplied any source to back you up. Fox News, a source that is clearly biased. Not once have you presented any evidence that supports your supposed 'facts', which are in reality your opinions and not necessarily fact at all. I have seen no encyclopedia (typically written by professional researchers who DO search out facts), law dictionary or text, regular dictionary or text, or agency such as the United Nations reports, science journals that support or prove any of your opinions, supposed facts, or points. Not once. |
1) I said a minor is, within reason, above the law. Can you actually read my posts, or are you just trying to throw together something to insult me. The "within reason" portion was stating the following: if an infant *somehow* commits a crime, they won't be charged. I do actually believe this is extended to age seven (by age seven you should know how to act). If I were saying a seventeen year-old were above the law whilst an 18 year old wasn't, THAT would be insane.
2) On the death penalty, I can hardly understand your own rambling. From the few phrases I could see, it is now common knowledge that you blatantly and malignantly ignored my entire post. My ENTIRE POST.
3) So Fox News is biased, but CNN and World News aren't? Oh, and atheist's blogs and pro-choice.org are great sources too. You either accept all sources of information and take them into consideration, or you remain ignorant of that which you don't WANT to acknowledge. Quite obviously, you are of the latter variety.
4) Much of my fact is supported by common sense rather than internet sources. All I've stated is that a fetus is human and living. Nobody disagrees as it is simply common sense. Just look up the definition of a fetus (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=fetus .... see? Animal embryo after a period of time. It is obvious. Animal=in this case, human. Embryo= cells=living). It's really not that hard to think that through. Perhaps you haven't seen my step-by-step map of how to logically come to my conclusion? I've posted it several hundred times, but people still seem not to see it. I wonder why. |
That is about the biggest bunch of camel fodder I have ever seen.
1.No one spoke about charging a fetus. What does 'within reason mean to you? How does it apply? It doesn't. Not one whit.
2.I ignored your post? How did I do that? And by whose common knowledge? Yours? I only posted one or two posts on the death penalty. What exactly are you talking about? Do you think you make sense all of the time? You have no idea how highly subjective that would be.
3.No. I have been deliberately using legal, texts, UN and encyclopedia sources since the protest over prochoice.org. You on the other hand have offered none in support of your 'theories, opinions or points of view."
4. Common sense. You mean common sense in your view. Yet you want supported arguments in return. Your common sense is not necessarily correct or true. Personhood? Would be different in many sources. I accept the scientific and legal ones. I am afraid 'Common Sense as Invictus' primary source' is not legitimate to me.
As I said. Camel fodder.
|
Rediker
|
| Quote: | | I am afraid 'Common Sense as Invictus' primary source' is not legitimate to me. |
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter. 
God forbid that someone try to make up THEIR OWN MIND about a matter, rather than having to stand behind so many 'so-called' experts, who can't even agree amongst each other. So does it really matter?
|
Sirak Sazen
|
| Rediker wrote: | | Quote: | | I am afraid 'Common Sense as Invictus' primary source' is not legitimate to me. |
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter.
God forbid that someone try to make up THEIR OWN MIND about a matter, rather than having to stand behind so many 'so-called' experts, who can't even agree amongst each other. So does it really matter? |
ROFLPWN
|
Rive Caedo
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | Only in one of your arguments have you supplied any source to back you up. Fox News, a source that is clearly biased. Not once have you presented any evidence that supports your supposed 'facts', which are in reality your opinions and not necessarily fact at all. I have seen no encyclopedia (typically written by professional researchers who DO search out facts), law dictionary or text, regular dictionary or text, or agency such as the United Nations reports, science journals that support or prove any of your opinions, supposed facts, or points. Not once. |
So why on Earth would you want to remove people like that out of the debate? Why would you want to deny a chance to make someone that might NOT see Fox News - or other sources - as biased to see that other people don't agree?
People can't grow if they're kept in the dark.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
Does this really need to be a debate? It was agreed on by almost everybody that discrimination is a bad thing and this idea won't work. Must we continue?
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
Because sometimes people grow by listening and learning. Isn't that what happens in school? I wonder how many of these posters have debated abortion in school or written papers about it in their classes. In most schools this subject is not taught until students are older.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
Grow to discriminate?
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
| Rediker wrote: | | Quote: | | I am afraid 'Common Sense as Invictus' primary source' is not legitimate to me. |
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter.
God forbid that someone try to make up THEIR OWN MIND about a matter, rather than having to stand behind so many 'so-called' experts, who can't even agree amongst each other. So does it really matter? |
Making up your own mind is far from the same thing as stating continually as Invictus does that something is fact, common sense, implied, etc without any sources or proofs to back him up.
So now you are also saying that the experts don't agree so does it matter, when just a little while ago C. Everett Coop was of vast importance once again. So which is it? Are experts important Rediker or not? Or is only your expert important as you accused me of more than once.
|
Rediker
|
Well, who are you to dictate to Invictus what his common sense should tell him? Or what he believes to be implied? Shoot, even what is fact?
How many 'facts' have contradicted each other in the Debates area?
|
Sirak Sazen
|
| Jianna wrote: | | Making up your own mind is far from the same thing as stating continually as Invictus does that something is fact, common sense, implied, etc without any sources or proofs to back him up. |
That's called having an opinion.
|
Rediker
|
Sirak, shhh... you're not old enough to have a 'viable' opinion.
|
Lord Invictus
|
| Rediker wrote: | Well, who are you to dictate to Invictus what his common sense should tell him? Or what he believes to be implied? Shoot, even what is fact?
How many 'facts' have contradicted each other in the Debates area? |
Many of them.
I, also, have used common sense and logical applications to come to a rational conclusion.
Jianna, however, hasn't used logical thought or rationality and is, instead, siting court references about how fetuses should be charged with assault, and stating a fetus is worthless.
If a baby was born and the mother sued it for assault, what do you think would happen?
|
Rediker
|
Aggravated assault. Trust me. I know!!
|
Crozeus
|
| Lord Invictus wrote: | | If a baby was born and the mother sued it for assault, what do you think would happen? |
1. The baby wouldn't be able to produce a case, so the mother would win.
2. I would rofl.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
| Lord Invictus wrote: | | Rediker wrote: | Well, who are you to dictate to Invictus what his common sense should tell him? Or what he believes to be implied? Shoot, even what is fact?
How many 'facts' have contradicted each other in the Debates area? |
Many of them.
I, also, have used common sense and logical applications to come to a rational conclusion.
Jianna, however, hasn't used logical thought or rationality and is, instead, siting court references about how fetuses should be charged with assault, and stating a fetus is worthless.
If a baby was born and the mother sued it for assault, what do you think would happen? |
Actually Invictus you have done no such thing. Your supposed 'rational conclusions' are not necessarily fact or true.
I actually have most certainly used logical rational thought that cites references to back me up. You have not done so. So is it rational thought to say, 'all criminals should be shot by a firing squad. But I qualify it. I know no one will come to that conclusion so even though I believe that I will say something else." Is that what you call rational thought? Oh wow. You mentioned you wanted to lead the world? Boy would we be in trouble then. What then would stop you from applying the idealistic notion you state over the realistic one?
You're not rational Invictus. The whilsts and whits sound good on the surface but under it the arguements that you profess have no validity.
By your own words you have to replace the idealistic one (Your true belief) with a realistic one.
|
Darth Splinter
|
| Jianna Merrowmere wrote: | | Because sometimes people grow by listening and learning. Isn't that what happens in school? I wonder how many of these posters have debated abortion in school or written papers about it in their classes. In most schools this subject is not taught until students are older. |
Actually, way back in my middle school days(8th grade in particular)I wrote a paper in defense of gay marriage. I took a gamble and did the best out of anyone else. What I learned about gay marriage (and abortion, for that matter) came from independent research, not through our 'school system'.
|
Jianna Merrowmere
|
Wow that's pretty young. Here parents would have a fit if students were taught that in eighth grade.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
We had sex ed in 7th grade. Granted, it wasn't anything truly graphic, but it was sex ed. We had drug abuse classes starting in 5th and abortion in 6th.
|
Adenn
|
I'm taking Sex Ed right now in 7th Grade.
In my opinion, age doesn't really matter, it's the maturity the person has to handle it...which some of us lack.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
I only laughed when we talked about male parts. I have to admit that, but I was mature through the rest of it.
|
Adenn
|
Same, I had to bite my lip to keep from chuckling in front of my science teacher.
|
Crozeus
|
I shouted out "there's me" repeatedly.
|
Adenn
|
My teacher would murder me if I did that.
|
Lord Invictus
|
As with all of my classes, I was completely silent.
|
Rive Caedo
|
My [first] experience (you're free to imagine this in a one-room brick schoolhouse in the frontier if you wish) was similar to Invictus', but likely for different reasons.
We were told that a male substitute would be brought in to talk to the male half of the class. That person did not arrive and so our female teacher was quite embarrassed to be forced into being the one to teach the session. Thus, we were all rather silent so as not to further embarrass her - and, for some, likely out of mutual embarrassment.
|
Lord Invictus
|
I had a lunatic teacher.
Crazy fat lady with a gobble (much like John McCain's/turkey's). He started yelling and turned purple at random moments in the presentation.
I remember a huge board on the wall fell on her for no reason during a religion class, and all I could think about was divine intervention.
|
Adenn
|
May the Gods be praised.
|
Yodafueva me
|
I was fortunate enough to not have sex education. Instead, I merely educated myself on the matter. I liked it a lot better than actually sitting through a sex education class because you learn about it on your own time. Even if there is no difference, it certainly feels more....righteous
|
Lord Invictus
|
| Yodafueva wrote: | | Instead, I merely educated myself on the matter. I liked it a lot... |
...
Good God....
|
Rediker
|
I concur.
Poor Rosy...
|
Adenn
|
Don't lie. We've all done the same thing.
|
RainaRose
|
I'm going to have to say no too.
|
Darth Splinter
|
| Adenn wrote: | | Don't lie. We've all done the same thing. |
When there is a computer in front of you, you kinda have to...
|
Xander Vos
|
It compels you...
|
princessleia
|
I wasn't crazy about sex education when I was in high school...I was in 7th grade when we started to talk about it in Health class...I am so glad High School is a subject that I don't have to worry about anymore haahaa...I feel for all of you who are still in your high school years! I don't see how you all can survive it nowadays lol....Times have definately changed!
|
Sirak Sazen
|
I'll be in high school next year. The plan is to wear armor to class each day. That should stop them from stuffing me in lockers!
|
Rive Caedo
|
Yep. I'd imagine that'd be 100% effective. I also recommend engraving "Our football team sucks!" on the chestpiece - I'm sure they'll appreciate the joke and you'll be the best of friends from then on.
|
princessleia
|
Ewww that doesn't sound too good Sirak.....I had gum thrown into my hair in 7th grade and teased...I was a band geek I know...!
|
Xander Vos
|
This is my LAST year of high school... not so bad.
|
Adenn
|
Next year is 8th Grade for me. 
I can't wait for High School, man.
|
Xander Vos
|
Wait what, isn't year 7 High School?
|
Adenn
|
Over here it's Middle School.
|
Shif'orn'talonura
|
You seem older Adenn.
|
Adenn
|
Why thank you.
|
Shif'orn'talonura
|
I donno if that was a compliment lol
|
Adenn
|
It's always a compliment.
|
Shif'orn'talonura
|
If you say so
|
princessleia
|
It was high school for me when I was in 7th grade...We didn't have a middle school back then....
|
Xander Vos
|
How old are you??
|
Dakoth
|
Older than the weather-beaten peaks of Killamanjaro, more ancient that the unflinching cliffface of the canyon, its hollow eye staring back into the dark pools of infinity.
|
Adenn
|
Must be pretty young.
|
Jiub
|
| Adenn wrote: | | It's always a compliment. |
I've found it is a compliment until you get to be about 23 (more or less).
|
Dakoth
|
Or unless you're a newborn, then its just odd.
|
Sirak Sazen
|
Or if you're dead.
|
Dakoth
|
Well if we're gonna play unfair like that, or if you're an immortal being, sufficing themselves for millenia upon the souls of the fallen.
|
|
|
