Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Search:

Type: Posts; User: mican333; Keyword(s):

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.40 seconds.

  1. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    A TV is property and the difference is:

    Marxism would abolish private property and therefore I could not have a TV as property
    DC would not abolish private property and therefore I could have a...
  2. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    By allowing people to privately own whatever they happen to buy. Attaining control over economic institutions does not require abolishing ownership of private property. I don't see how, for...
  3. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    While I do recognize common ground between the two descriptions, they are not exactly the same thing so one cannot say that one is just like the other.

    The Marxist/socialism description would...
  4. Thread: Fake Meat

    by mican333
    Replies
    18
    Views
    177

    Re: Fake Meat

    I don't see what's confusing about a veggie burger.

    People like regular hamburgers because they are tasty and filling.

    Some people don't want to eat meat for health and ethical reasons but...
  5. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    You don't need to share your excuses with me.



    You are free to not respond to my posts but I am still free to post here and show that your arguments are incorrect.

    The fact is you have...
  6. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    This looks like a complete strawman. I don't even see me referring to "far" in some manner. So I'm just going to repost my last bit and hope for a relevant rebuttal this time.

    I didn't nit pick...
  7. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    There's also the opening sentence of the OP.

    "The Left often accuses Republicans of extremism, but available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more...
  8. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    I don't challenge the notion that a portion of the Democratic party has moved more to the left (although I would challenge that Bernie Sanders-style Democratic Socialism qualifies as "extreme" as it...
  9. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    A Democratic socialist, similar to Bernie Sanders (who's also a Democratic Socialist) and IMO while democratic socialism is further left than typical Democratic platforms, it's hardly extreme. ...
  10. Replies
    96
    Views
    1,689

    Re: Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

    Obviously one cannot accurately asses which side is more extremist by just, as you have done, cherry pick a few examples that exclusively back up ONLY ONE SIDE of the equation and not even bother to...
  11. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    It implies it, yes. But it does not support it.

    imply =/= support.
  12. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    As far as I can tell, you have made no argument that logically leads one to conclude that we must add looks to a protected class.

    Your logic chain does not end with "therefore, looks...etc" and...
  13. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    I don't disagree that it implies the final conclusion. It does imply it. But it does not SUPPORT it so the logic chain does not support the conclusion.



    Wrong. I made no such insistence. ...
  14. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Claims of support is not support. And as Squatch pointed out in his red letter post, you and I saying "I did", "no you didn't", "yes I did", etc. does not forward the debate.

    If you have support,...
  15. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    I am directly saying that you have not supported your claim that looks (and the rest) should be added to protected classes.
  16. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    And the logic chain does not support that looks should be added to the list of protections.




    But a logic chain does have to actually lead to the conclusion that it's suppose to support. If...
  17. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Claims of prior support is not support. I never saw an argument that specifically said "and therefore we need a law".

    Either provide support or re-post prior support.



    Support or retract...
  18. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    That the government should create a law protecting people based on their political beliefs.




    Shifting the burden. You are arguing that the level of discrimination faced by the ugly warrants...
  19. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    My comfort is not the issue. I'm pointing that while the chain's reasoning is valid, it does not support that conclusion that we should add "looks" to protected class.

    For a logic chain to...
  20. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Yes. It is absolutely necessary that a logic chain ends with the conclusion that one is attempting to support with the logic chain. You can't create a logic chain that supports X without the chain...
  21. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Fair enough.




    First off, sincere kudos (although I'm guessing you don't care if I give you kudos or not but I'm still voicing my approval) for using a logic chain and I think it's a valid...
  22. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    I thought you were trying to support what I asked you to support - that the differences are irrelevant.

    So either way, youe claim that the differences are irrelevant is not supported.



    No,...
  23. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    So you are saying that because no evidence has been presented that there are relevant differences between the group, we can conclude that there are no relevant differences.

    That is engaging in the...
  24. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    It does apply. IF one agrees that people should receive legal protection based on height, then a federal law should be made that applies to everyone.

    But that certainly does not justify such a law...
  25. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    True, but one has to make a reasonable case that we will get there before one can be expected to take the issue seriously or think that it could reasonably be considered a problem with our current...
  26. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    One would only agree to that if they think that all immutable characteristics should be given protected class status similar to race.

    But I don't think that all immutable characteristics should...
  27. Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    I think it does a very weak job of leveling criticism against current discrimination laws.

    I think we can all agree that expanding protections for every single immutable characteristics would...
  28. Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    First off, I know one is not suppose to respond to a moderator's red-letter post but I since there is an adjudication on the debate which involves a post that has been deleted, I would like to make...
  29. Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Shifting the burden. You are the one arguing that the criteria does, or should, grant the ugly and the short legal protection from discrimination so the burden is on you to show that either the...
  30. Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Support please. There is a specific criteria for when a characteristic meets the standard for receiving such protection and I know it's not whatever you happen to think deserves such protection.
    ...
Results 1 to 30 of 250
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4