MrStrawHat

Not certain what the meaning behind this is. It's obvious that guns are a method of killing, but that doesn't mean guns inherently kill people. There's data on the defensive use of guns, yet the statement is never 'guns save people'. Moreover, we're seeing more attacks made through other means showing that it's the people and the intent that really matters.

So do guns kill people? Yes, but does banning guns stop killings?

That doesn't make any sense, the chain of logic could extend so far away, where do you draw the line? Does the sea cause the erosion or the salt in the sea? Or the force of the waves? Is it the moon that caused that? Did someone die because the moon killed them?

Murder requires intent, nobody would say the sea murdered the guy either. If a man kills someone with a knife, is it the knife that kills them or the guy? What about if he bludgeons them with a rock, was it the rock or the guy? Guns are no different, they're just designed for that specific use. Nobody ever says 'gun kills many' they'd say 'shooter kills many'.

And if you tried thrusting the edge of your fist into someone's stomach you won't stab them without a knife, what's your point? Are you blaming the cliff or the moon? Are you blaming the gun or the electrical impulses? It's a double standard if you choose one over the other

You say that yet have shown that there are 'beauty standards' to begin with. Why are there these social trends if all beauty is subjective?

I disagree. There are minor details which can be popularised through time with regards to make up and clothing, but there are definitely beauty traits and ideals to look to. If you look at paintings of Marie Antoinette and other figures throughout history those looks would still be competitive in today's world.

The science behind this mostly points to an innate preference towards symmetry, the more symmetrical the face, the more beautiful someone is regarded. This is shown even in babies, so it's unlikely a societal trend. I suspect there may be further preferences like these depending upon the sex, especially with regard to body proportions, and it's this reason that obesity will never be truly accepted as 'beautiful'.

With regards to your example, women nowadays may be thinner than in the 1900's but there's a very defined hourglass figure on all the women mentioned in that article. The science also suggests waist-to-hip ratio is a defining aspect of how beautiful a woman's body is. We see the golden ratio in nature all the time, and this extends to the proportions in both the male and female body.

This is why I think that there may be trends and influences which, thinking about it, may be more indicative of wealth, but there will be a beauty standard that throughout time is adhered to.

So how is that against?

The fact that people disagree with this blows my mind

Not until you accept more suggestions

Not taking suggestions doesn't add to the conversation either.

Social Media already "stamps out" misinformation, but who gets to decide what the 'correct' information is? I don't see how regulation will change anything

There's some people who seriously believe that the government are all reptilian aliens, that doesn't make it evidently true

By that logic body integrity dysphoria is treated by hacking a limb off

But you're making a blanket judgement about how everyone's an armchair psychologist because they don't reach the same conclusion you do.

By the same token, should we reward them for taking us out of the stone age?

Or else what?

"He will still have white and male privilege that offer him advantages over white women and anyone from another ethnicity"

Like what?

Violence against whom? China? India?

"Political correctness" is the guise of respect to other cultures and a standardised way to communicate to people of different levels in society; in theory preventing offence. In actuality it is compelled speech and censorship, a hallmark of authoritarian politics.

We've already seen examples of people being sacked from their jobs and in some cases criminally prosecuted for not being 'politically correct'. This is exerting a power over people for their use of language which goes against the God given right of freedom of speech, either through law or otherwise. Simply saying this is being held 'accountable' or promoting tolerance is false as we can see intolerance being policed unevenly, and even promoted. If political correctness was sincerely for equality this should not happen.

The motives of activists should also be questioned as we can see examples of hypocrisy when promoting a fair, politically correct image.

Furthermore, in my opinion, this can have the unintended consequence of turning people towards hate instead of against it. Being compelled to act a certain way will naturally evoke a rebellious pushback against it. There is a reason we are seeing a rise in certain political ideologies in opposition to the mainstream 'politically correct' view. Were political correctness to not exist, ignorant views would be exposed and challenged more appropriately, and as Western cultures become more diverse education in societies around the world would be more readily available.

To conclude my rant, I will say that I think the deeper meaning of political correctness is to bully people into thinking and acting a certain way while masquerading as 'tolerance'. This promotes the view that morality should be based on tolerance instead of traditional values, but there are certain acts which should never be tolerated, and I question whether promoting political correctness it a force for good. If people want to be politically incorrect then it is their right to do so and compelling them otherwise is insidious.

"Differences can induce the racist idea that certain (often non-Western) populations are naturally less intelligent than other (e.g., Western) populations"

Asian populations regularly score higher in IQ tests than Western populations. How is this accounted for?

None of that means IQ test are inaccurate. If you're practiced in reasoning, lateral thinking, problem solving, etc. which you'd get with an education you're going to be more intelligent than you'd be without practice, which is reflected in the IQ score.

As to emotional intelligence, how would it be measured?

A heinous crime is a heinous crime regardless of the age of who committed it

'You either have faith that criminals can be rehabilitated into society or you don't'

You're making the assumption that all criminals are the same. A store thief can be rehabilitated, a serial rapist not so much.

To censor offensive material is the same as denying it happens

Yet he didn't have it in the 1980's

Imagine the sentiment if the question was 'Fascism has never been truly tried'

Yes, that was my point

But if we know the truth it can be challenged and changed naturally instead of covered up in an artificial effort to bring about equality

If the job's being done the same, what does it matter the motivation for entering the profession? Having compassion for those who are sick isn't what puts food on the table

I think it's arguably natural, in a tribalist way, to stick together, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better

The benefits of diversity are dependent on the background of the individual, not their aesthetics

Confirmation bias, nothing else

Surely culture holds a greater influence?

Would there still be competition with a one-party state? If not, is that really democratic?

Then why are the Cubans calling for freedom?

Regardless of whether you believe the calories in/calories out model or hormone theory of weight gain, fasting is the best way to lose weight as it is simpler to implement (i.e. you don't have to measure food), cheaper (just skip a meal instead of getting a low-calorie one) and has a greater historical precedence.

You didn't provide evidence that fasting is unsustainable, only that [calorie counting] (https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting-calories) is. The longest fast [documented] (https://pmj.bmj.com/content/postgradmedj/49/569/203.full.pdf) lasted 382 days, showing that fasting is an effective approach to weight-loss over a long span of time. I'm unable to find studies about long-term intermittent fasting, but that doesn't mean it's unsustainable as we see [religious practices of fasting] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting_during_Ramadan) which have lasted generations.

My previous point was that fasting [is easier to implement] (https://jamesclear.com/good-bad-intermittent-fasting) than calorie counting, with similar weight-loss effects. However, I think the [study you showed] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/intermittent-fasting-no-better-than-calorie-restriction-for-weight-loss) was quite poor as, by the admission of the authors, only overall weight loss was measured, not body fat. There are [several studies] (https://watermark.silverchair.com/z4w00605001347.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAskwggLFBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggK2MIICsgIBADCCAqsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM8D12oHqLmWZEganCAgEQgIICfKAoVZ9G-3Sv5aShtCymn9KnhT8ufFE3TkEOrOjD4uLAT8vMMoJm-PHA6LSZHIVbTsy6KG7ye-EtpZxZDq0QCXrbyYvMvNg4_un_zPxtE-g-sLSyuGmohrj50jmesTNRUcdof51kqXRz-iFNGFNYu3FJpfdIgY_O4EsLRPrC2M1Fs5Km_qYSXd3ja_jRblRnZralk-k_uSKWalEJ7qpnjPTORYJNlWIlvUwgnViNRLdxCQHrGL-UHudVw1h35izTQw2dVpvIpJJaLA-TLN6CnjwKBiPGsHhrZ8pwK-pGb6r7I3G8ZHsXfqYfvxE_nKpheGuRuc1VQhV6YKR0pN_HZfX129WDfeYPHYwSB8mISNBmA6MKWNRzOj0DftfL0h3IFMoS1uAgtLeUukfkFmdujl2wVT1IAmXYQpXA9oQHm1FDDDzGiwdIGFatrovfWoy2ukRpTdGWni91ba8QJECxUhLTDozr_xRx8nHNJlnl5DXmEXwF083HH87BjpQBqyYZWy3uS9d2ug__KeWd8U4hFfY5rGWb2MOAk3jPB3MicYVSZakrnsY1wHPau4UlZXG1GgTHDi7hKu4TwyT4J411YnOt85e-EJ0lUzgaBVtMk_jk90Vm89i8REekQlGIYH61xVz44OpHFni2XbqWVem5Vc4GDxg5a87fSXnGKxbn1FyBVvv5xYHtlTfeKgD0ns6AOp-lQO4xCjCIEaNaU4o86IQdVpLu6Z72exqWgaGKp9xuz5ddh7hgNbk-x_MZfrr6NqheXKpK-uc5_NjCWaQ9GfF48PUTFd9Jm3mOF_wRhSGEclGG8uROKfXCAQTxeJ-SAj8Nco7cD6G6HFkZlg) showing that calorie restriction comes with muscle loss, whereas fasting [preserves] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24215592/) muscle mass. On top of this, calorie restriction has many [drawbacks] (https://www.nutritionist-resource.org.uk/blog/2020/10/02/why-diets-dont-work) such as fatigue, loss of strength, and overall deterioration. Not only this, but calorie counting is just restricting the amount of food you eat, resulting in [more hunger] (https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/stop-counting-calories) and can lead to weight gain due to a rise in cortisol levels. Compare this with the hormonal effect of fasting, which shows that, not only will you lose fat during a fast, but you will get [less hungry] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522942/) as overall levels of ghrelin decrease during a long fast.

This is ignoring the other [health benefits] (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1905136) of fasting. [Improved insulin sensitivity] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118302535) shows that fasting is an effective strategy to mitigate at least the risk of diabetes, if not the actual disease itself. On top of this, there's evidence suggesting that fasting [increases longevity] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4257368/), improves [cardiovascular risk] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1474651413486496), and even [regenerate your immune system] (https://www.clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae/en/health-byte/pages/fasting-health-immunity-is-there-a-connection.aspx) showing there are multiple health benefits of fasting outside of weight loss.

Your point that there are factors besides food that account for weight management, frankly, isn't very good. For most people, what you eat and when you eat is going to be the greatest factor in weight-gain, as you can't gain weight without eating. Calorie restriction will be difficult for many people, as it is a constant chore, especially for eating out, to count how many calories you're eating. In first world countries [obesity is linked to poverty] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25292135/) which shows that obesogenic foods are cheaply made and the most easily affordable. Therefore eating a nutritional meal and losing weight is difficult to do for people with a low-income. However, fasting is a better option for these situations, as fasting can be done after a social meal, and will reduce hunger for those who can't afford healthy meals, as I previously mentioned.

Your point to 'find what works for you and you alone', doesn't work for me. The diet that worked for an obese person made them obese. If you're talking about treatment for obesity, well, death is imminent for many obese people, and they simply may not have the time left to find what works for them. If you believe obesity is a disease, then it needs a radical treatment, if someone had measles would you suggest they find what works for them?

Your sources mostly point to the evidence that fad diets don't work, which I agree with. But my point isn't about fad diets, it's about calorie restriction. The reason people fail fad diets is that diets deprive you of food, but fasting doesn't do this, it just delays the time when you eat it, therefore it's less restrictive. As to your original point about 'The key to healthy eating is through balance and listening to your body', I think this is a vague notion, but I kind of agree with it. I think the way humans are supposed to eat is a nutritional meal whenever you're hungry, if that's what you meant. But I think this isn't achieveable in the modern 3-meals a day/breakfast is important society and I think fasting is a better compromise than calorie restriction.

I agree, but I'd argue this is why fasting is better as it overall holds more net benefits. Saying it depends on the individual seems a bit obvious to me.

"Are best made by going into the details of the study that you disagree with"

I did

With obesity on the rise, I’d say listening to your body simply doesn’t work

What about a slightly larger clump of cells that doesn't have a conscience and individual thought and bodily autonomy?

That doesn't make any sense, are you suggesting murder isn't wrong?

So a severely autistic or mentally handicapped person is a mere object? Are plants not alive?

You still aren't making any sense, can you dumb it down?

And at what stage does consciousness develop? Is it an abortion before then and murder afterwards? Is someone in a vegetative state, who is without consciousness, not a person?

So if a baby is killed before birth but after the third trimester, is it murder or abortion? How are you defining malicious? I'd say if a mother couldn't be bothered with carrying through the pregnancy she's ending a human life just because she's lazy. Is that malicious? If we kill someone in a vegetative state is that not murder? If not, then what? Are they now an object?

Would you be in favour of abortion being illegal if cutting off life support is too?

You're denying the unborn child to be born

But how can it be an abortion after the third trimester when, by your own definition, that’s now a human being and not an object? Is it an object with conciousness? How can it be abortion 1 minute before birth yet murder 1 minute after? The baby’s still the same, it’s just travelled. What about premature births? If babies can survive them why is birth the defining moment they become human? You need to stay consistent. Also, people in vegetative states can recover, are they people, then objects, then people again? Frankly I think that’s a horrible thing to say

I'm asking you all these questions because I genuinely don't understand your point of view. Premature births can and do happen proving that human life begins before the birthing process. People can recover from vegetative states. How is it murder to kill someone who can recover from a coma yet abortion to kill someone who can survive a premature birth? How are you defining meaningful conciousness? You're just trying to justify your position to yourself, all conciousness needs life. If stopping a pregnancy before birth is an abortion why can the legal system charge you with the murder of an unborn child? Your argument doesn't make sense

Now, if we look at human life begins at conception there's a clearer picture. Babies need a support system just like people in comas, babies grow and fulfill the characteristics of living things. If you aren't happy calling abortion murder will you admit that it's killing? Because you're ending a human life, regardless of which phase of development it's in

I have made arguments, your reasoning is just poor. Life begins at inception and abortion is killing an unborn human. No amount of mental hopscotch or uppercase whining can change that. This is why stillborn births or miscarriages are so tragic. I'd ask you why you think they're so tragic but that would just upset you again.

Why are you telling me this when he wrote the same comment 4 times?

Well it isn't to me, I don't understand how killing a coma patient is murder yet killing a foetus isn't

Middlemen are necessary in economics for efficiency. If they weren’t necessary those jobs wouldn’t exist

Sounds like a good idea, but does this mean intentionally misleading or accidentally misleading? And how would you prove whether it was one or the other?

Because the right wing places greater value in the freedom of the people. Do you think it's coincidence all fascist powers have been left-wing?

Firstly, you do realise fascism isn't exclusive to the Nazis? We have the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and China, amongst I'm sure others. All these countries take on Marxist, socialist, communist, or otherwise ultimately left-wing policies which have turned to authoritarian dictatorships. I'm sure you can argue a dictatorship is different to fascism, but to me they represent the same goal.

Fascism is by definition a political philosophy which promotes the nation above the individual, a centralised autocratic government, severe economic regulation and suppression of dissent through force. This can fit both Nazism and the previously mentioned left-wing political ideologies.

As for your definition of promoting ethnic scapegoating, ideas of white privilege or critical race theory (CRT) are promoted by left-wing ideologues and not the conservatives. CRT claims to be the study of systematic racism despite there being very little evidence that systematic racism exists, and in practice this turns into anti-white rhetoric.

Even if you take the idea that racism is exclusively right-wing you'd still have to contend with the fact that right-wingers inherently value individual freedom, so the individual can be racist but the state must remain neutral. I have never seen equality of outcome being called a right-wing idea, and as equality of outcome would have to be forced on the population it would take away individual rights. Under a Nazi state individual rights don't exist; the state will kill you for being Jewish. Again, we have seen this in the execution of millions within the Soviet Union alone.

Ultimately racism does not belong to either side of the political spectrum, as racists will emerge from all walks of life regardless.

If we look at the Nazi 25-point plan we can find various left-wing movements, the state providing for the people (#7), the abolition of unearned income (#11), the nationalisation of businesses (#13), the division of profits (#14), centralised education (#20), the duty of the people to the state (#25). Most of the commonly cited right-wing ideas involve German-only citizens and to prevent the immigration of non-citizens (#4,5) whereas the actual right-wing ideas are to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country in favour of legal immigrants becoming citizens.

Following the outbreak of COVID-19 from Wuhan, China's authoritarian rule actively banned scientists and doctors from leaking potentially life-saving information about the coronavirus. This shows a shocking display of selfishness and incompetence, as China failed to lock down on the coronavirus during it's early stages allowing it to spread into a global pandemic.

Furthermore, this is not the first epidemic that China has produced, regardless of whether you believe this is a manmade virus or natural, as the SARS outbreak in 2002 first arose in Guangdong. During this initial outbreak, China used the same tactics of preventing press coverage and delayed reporting to the World Health Organisation (WHO), allowing the virus to spread to Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore and Canada. The outbreak ended after intervention from the WHO and good fortune. But it appears China did not learn its lesson.

The outbreak of these coronaviruses have been linked to wildlife and wet markets which are still prominent in China. In my opinion, the Chinese government should be less concerned about their appearance on the international stage and more concerned with cracking down upon these markets in order to prevent these viruses from originating in the first place. It has similarly been suggested that the prevalence of bats in China are the cause of coronavirus mutations, I would also suggest an action plan to stop bat-related viruses from developing needs to be enacted.

The death count from COVID-19 has reached the millions, yet I see very little holding China to task for the pandemic, in spite of it's history of viral outbreaks. Whether the virus developed from bats, wet markets, or laboratories is inconsequential, as the government has played an active role in allowing COVID to spread beyond its borders and across the world. It appears politics has been more important, as merely referring to the coronavirus as the 'Wuhan flu' or 'Chinese virus' will be deemed as racist, despite the fact that these terms act as a reminder of where and how COVID originated. The rise of racially motivated attacks upon people of Asian descent are terrible acts, but I believe they represent the frustration of people who do not see China facing consequences of their actions.

China needs to be held accountable, or else it's only a matter of time before another deadly coronavirus epidemic is inflicted upon the world. The Chinese government has shown that it is unwilling to put the lives of its citizens and others before its public image. In this case, it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to do so, and make China face the consequences of its actions. How many more millions have to die before this happens?

Gender roles still exist, it’s too hardwired into humans. Trying to change them overnight is just creating friction

When you become a parent your first priority is raising your child

Society enforce such restrictions

I think it's critical to interpret the situations where abortion can't be justified. If you choose to have unprotected sex and pregnancy is the result, that's on you. Pretending that carrying through that pregnancy is being 'forced' to have a baby is lying about the consequences of your actions. You are creating a human life, someone who has never existed before and will never exist again, something special, something unique, but that should be extinguished just because you're 'not ready' for it. Well why didn't you put a rubber at the end of it when the child was conceived?

To me this is blindingly obvious. From what I've seen there seems to be a hierarchy of 'victims' of modern society with very little real evidence to support these ideas. For example, women are less privileged than men which people agree with because there is a pay gap between the sexes. People will try to convince you this is evidence for inequality but fail to account for the choices men and women make, which is the actual reason behind this gap; i.e. most women would rather raise children than have a career. However when women push back against the trans community there's outrage because trans people are higher up in the victimhood scale. E.g. if you're against trans women competing with biological women you're transphobic or a terf, regardless of any scientifically backed criticisms you may have.

It's for this reason we see groups like BLM amass such wealth, where the objective is to raise awareness of the disproportionare amount of black people being shot by police. Black people are victims, police are perpetrators. Again, there is little evidence to suggest black people are disproportionately killed in unjustified shootings with police, but there is evidence that the greatest threat to black people is other black people as they constitute the majority of black murderers. But because black people are portrayed as victims, tearing down statues and other social justice-inspired vandalism hold no consequences. For every George Floyd there's a Daniel Shaver, and BLM are profiting off it.

If you still don't believe me just look at the Jussie Smollett incident and question why he did what he did.

You can't judge yesterday's heroes by today's standards, removing a monument should be done with community support, not a mob

One of the most often answers to this is 'Just call the police' but this is assuming that police are always trustworthy. Not only that but police only come after the crime has been committed, they aren't much use at actually stopping the crime itself, only catching criminals after the fact.

We can see videos of home intruders running at the very sight of a gun, showing that the threat of being shot is a greater deterrent than being arrested. Realistically, how many criminals are caught anyway?

We can also see statistics in the US of the rate of violent crime dropping as gun ownership increases. As right to carry laws are introduced across the country, violent crime rates drop. This isn't coincidence as the rate plumments immediately after adopting these laws, showing that the risk of being shot is not worth the reward.

If each country has a nuclear deterrent against war, why does that same logic not apply to individuals carrying guns?

A disillusioned student might bring a knife to school and stab a kid who then needs stitches. With guns, they can bring in an assault rifle and mow down a classroom.

-And a teacher with a gun can stop both instances

A man might rob a bank by punching cashiers and stealing property

-How often do unarmed people rob banks? The majority of the time they're armed

You switched from likely losing your car to likely losing your life

-Why have I switched? The options open to me not having a gun are also available with a gun

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 - CDC

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

Social Justice is the idea of bringing equality to minorities, but in doing so it makes assumptions about them. What is racism if not making negative assumptions based on skin colour?

An example of this is how ‘voter ID laws are racist’ because black people can’t figure out how to obtain ID

I find it particularly ironic how MLK dreamt of a day when people are judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin, yet this is exactly how social justice is working

But how are you exploiting or being cruel to an animal that's already dead?

If you can employ more women at a lower rate of pay then why are there so many male employees?

So you think the history of favouring men is more important to an employer than spending less money? This is assuming women are just as competitive as men and not that they are choosing not to work as much

And what if I think all theft is wrong?

Some people view tax as paying for services provided by the government, like education, healthcare, emergency services, the military, etc. I'm in favour of having these, but that doesn't give the government the right to take my money away from me. I don't get to choose which services my tax pays for, I don't get to choose how much is fair, and I don't get to opt out if I don't require any of these services.

• The concept of theft does not and cannot exist independently of the law

But the law didn't determine that theft was wrong, it followed the consensus that theft should be punished. Therefore stealing is wrong regardless of what the law says.

-So long as the state has a legal right to your pre-tax income, then taxation cannot be theft

To follow on, the state has determined that it has a legal right to take a portion of my earnings. This makes it legal, but that doesn't mean it's morally right, as I haven't voluntarily given my money to the state, it's been taken. This is a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' as the state is taking away from the public but is then telling citizens that it's unlawful when they do it.

-You have a moral right to your pre-tax income

But I do. I worked for my wage, I deserve what I've been given. The state has decided it just wants a portion of the earnings, what right do they have to assert their position?

-This has the potential to lead to an inefficient and uneven allocation of funding to certain sectors

How do you know this doesn't already happen? You're just trusting the efficiency of the government to allocate the funds effectively. I think a greater portion of taxes should go to the NHS and away from the wages of politicians. I think there are inefficient departments within the government that should be abolished. If people choose where to send their tax money this will be a telling insight as to which parts of the government are actually necessary.

-Appropriate for government officials and expert policy advisers [...] to decide how the taxes are spent

That's assuming these are honest people, without corruption. We've seen cronyism many times before, how many people would willingly have paid for the UK track-and-trace system?

From a legal perspective, tax does not fit this definition

-I touched upon this briefly, but I'll say it again. Tax doesn't fit this definition because the state both collects tax and defines the law. It's a 'do as I say, not as I do' situation. Why would the state admit that taxation is theft? I think people should be free to take drugs recreationally, that's unlawful, but is it morally wrong? If the law and what is moral are two separate issues, what should it matter what the law says? I think this point is irrelevant.

This is where the foundational issue of “wrongness” lies

-I don't think you really did explain it well in your response, as you feel that's an acceptable answer to a point I've already debated. But I'll briefly say what's justifiable and what's immoral are two different things. Killing is morally wrong, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but the death penalty still exists in some parts of the U.S. which some argue is justifiable. I think there are definitely instances, such as war, where deaths are justifiable, but that doesn't make them moral. By the same token, you can say tax is justifiable, but taking money from me is immoral.

I think that we should be looking at the issue from the perspective of the citizens

-That doesn't change the fact that money is being taken from citizens unwillingly. If citizens want to donate some of their money as tax in exchange for the services the government provides that's their choice and that would be a fair transaction, but that's not what tax does.

To require every individual citizen [...]to decide complex questions of national budget seems quite risky to me

-Yes it would, but my point is that money transfers should be transactional, as in I voluntarily give my money over in exchange for a good or service. If I don't require that good or service I shouldn't be compelled to give over my money.

All in all, tax is here to stay regardless of what I think is fair, but theft is defined as taking without permission, if I don't give permission for the state to take from me, that's theft.

Offence isn't pain

I'd argue people like that are in the minority, which disqualifies the all aspect of 'All comedy'

25% is still a minority

I'd still argue that most comedy is based at the expense of someone, rather than pain

-Knock knock
Who’s there?
-Lettuce
Lettuce who?
-Lettuce in, it’s freezing

Where is the pain there?

That's why I said 'at the expense of someone' before. I get what you're saying that comedy contains some victimhood, but I think the majority of people disagree that it's all comedy involves pain. I'd imagine most people would agree with 'Most of comedy requires a victim'

I'm assuming this is from the comment 'You are, in letter and in spirit, both sexist and racist', which I suppose is an attack on the character. This doesn't mean I don't agree, as I too think it's inherently sexist and racist to assume both sex and race are relevant to socio-economic class.

Being civil is what stops people from childish name-calling and forces them to engage with the argument. If you attack the person and not the argument, you've lost

Capitalism has proven itself to be the best economic system by far. The standard of living has been raised for everyone regardless of income bracket. At its purest form it represents the will of the people and promotes innovation, most governmental influence only corrupts the system. Is is perfect? No, but no system will ever be perfect and it's foolhardy to suggest that's an achieveable goal. Capitalism has done so much and frankly I'm fed up of people constantly berating it.

Capitalism is an absolutely fair system, it's the most free economic system, so to my mind if you're anti-Capitalist you're anti-freedom.

-“An economic system in which a country’s trade, industry and profits are controlled by private companies, instead of by the people whose time and labor powers those companies”

This is not inherently problematic. The alternative would be a country's trade, industry and profit be controlled by the government which would be far worse as the government has ultimate power over the citizens

-For those who are the workers, capitalism breeds inequality and exploitation

This is assuming inequality and fairness are the same when they aren't. It's not equal when my colleague gets paid more than me, but if he's working 40 hours a week and I'm working 30, why should we get the same wage? Is it exploitative if he's willing to do higher quality work than I am?

-In theory this should mean that when businesses prosper, so do those who work for them

Why? My job hasn't changed, what have I done personally to deserve a pay rise? The upper management who are leading the company have made all the risks to prosper, why should it trickle down to the workers if they haven't really done anything differently?

-Capitalism divides society by class and wealth

Capitalism didn't start this, we see socio-economic classes in different societies throughout history. What Capitalism does is make the transistion from one class to another much easier. It's been said that in the U.S. all one has to do is finish high-school, get a full-time job and marry after 21 to join the middle class. Compare this to feudal Japan where if you're born a pesant, you're a pesant for life.

-[Capitalism] encourages the best of humanity to resort to greed and selfishness

Why? Because people get to profit from their contributions? Greed is about taking things from people, Capitalism is about providing a good or service. Consider how Steve Jobs got so rich, because he provided Macbooks, iPhones, and Apple products. He didn't take money, the people willingly gave it in exchange for them.

-It’s also anti-democratic because power and control is dictated by the wealthiest members of society

Power which can easily be taken away should they not innovate or deserve it. Blockbuster held power 20 years ago then Netflix took over due to their innovation. The same can be said for MySpace. The people wanted Netflix more than they wanted Blockbuster, if that's not democratic, I don't know what is.

-Half of the world’s population - more than 3 billion people!! - live on less than $2 a day.

I don't see what that has to do with Capitalism. Are you saying another economic system would work?

I agree, but at the same time it's a way of shaking things up and introducing the sport to a wider audience

At the same time, I see more people in defence of these players than there were people abusing them

No-one's saying it isn't an issue, just not that big an issue. Remember these are still incredibly popular and well-paid guys with a lot of influence, with one of them able to change government decisions. So is it the hidden beliefs of the majority of the population or a handful of football fans with a lot of media coverage?

No, I don't think it's that big of an issue. I'll go over your points step by step

The racial abuse received by footballers is just one example that supports my argument that racism is still a big issue.

-I've already gone over this, but I'll repeat myself. The overwhelming majority of people defended the football players, versus a handful of hooligans dishing racial slurs, hardly a support for racism being a big issue. Name calling to me isn't a big issue.

Mortality rates of Black pregnant women compared to other ethnicity groups.

-I'll assume you read this from the Guardian so I'll quote: 'Almost all of those who died during or after pregnancy had multiple issues such as mental or physical health problems, were victims of domestic abuse, or were living in a deprived area. More than half of those who died were overweight or obese. Cardiac disease represents the largest single cause of indirect maternal deaths.' The actual report says 8 white mothers died per 100,000 pregnancies versus 34 black mothers. It's not great, but realistically it's 0.00034% of the population, not to mention the report itself says 'Maternal suicide is the fifth most common cause of women’s deaths during pregnancy and its immediate aftermath, and is the leading cause of death over the first year after pregnancy.' Not very nice statistics, but I don't think it indicates a white supremacy culture within the NHS.

The banning of the hijab if working in a face to face environment.

-First of all Islam is a religion, not a race, but I digress. I believe in religious freedom, so I'm against this. At the same time the ruling was in favour of businesses banning religious or political clothing to promote neutral images. To put that in perspective, how would you feel being served by a man in a KKK hood?

Incarceration rates of ethnic minorities compared to white people. Stop and search rates by race.

-I'll lump these in together seeing as they both tackle crime. First of all, the statistics I've found show BAME constitute 16% of the general population and 27% of the prison population, which to me isn't a huge difference considering the rest are white, but let's see why that is. A guilty plea will often result in a lesser sentence, up to a third of a sentence length, compared to a not-guilty plea. Looking at the people who hand over a not-guilty plea, 37% were BAME versus 27% white, meaning BAME will spend longer in prison, so no doubt there will be an accumulative effect occurring. This is assuming they're convicted which happens 79% of the time compared with 85% of white people. So BAME will actually be convicted less often than white people, is this evidence of racism against the white population? As to stop and searches, we see that the most common crime BAME people are convicted for is drug offences and possession of weapons, and that the majority of stop and searches happen within London, where the BAME population is 41%. I'll conceed the police are disproportionately stop and searching blacks, but make of that what you will.

Media treatment of Meghan Markle

-Not really indicative of racism. The majority of the public and the media were excited about the Royal wedding. Meghan Markle makes a big song and dance about how she's constantly the victim, but when you look at all the factors surrounding her; the fact her dad wasn't invited to the wedding, the high staff turnover rate, the absconding of her and Harry from the UK, there's one common denominator. Is Meghan really a victim or is there no smoke without fire?

Systematic racism in UK schools

-Not really heard of this one, honestly. Is it that black students often hear racist language? Or that they're given detention for adopting hairstyles from their cultural tradition? If the latter, that's not surprising, schools are always getting into the media about uniform regulations, how many times have you heard of boys wearing skirts in protest during the summer? As to racist language, I don't agree with it, but we're talking about teenagers here.

So is racism a problem? Absolutely. Is it a big problem? I think that's debateable. Are we to assume that everything different that happens to the BAME population will be the result of racism? Or shall we accept that there are cultural clashes that cause disparities between us? Are we going to ignore that Chinese pupils do better in standard education? Or that the majority of homeless people are white Or that Indians are the most employed? Or that the Chinese (again) are the most well paid? I'd encourage you to 'get informed' but that would be uncivil.

Affirmative action is allowing certain people into university based on the colour of their skin at the exclusion of others. If that's not racist, I don't know what is

By the same token, should there be an affirmative action policy for whites living in Asia?

You need water to live, but you have to buy it. You need food to live, but you have to buy it. Period products are lower down on the list of biological necessities so I don’t see what makes them different

Depends on what's being asked. Are there some things that science can't ever explain, or are there things science can't explain so far?

Why would they go into those fields if they were bad at it?

I get that, I'm saying it might be that women aren't as good at it which is why you see fewer of them

That's terrible. Life also has beauty, joy, pride, good things that should be shared by others. If life is so bad, there's always the option to end it. Having children isn't about giving people a bad life, it's about creating a person who hasn't existed before and will never exist again, excentricities, disabilities, warts and all. That's a beautiful thing, why would you want to prevent that?

If you don't have kids, that's fine, but policing who can and can't have kids? You don't get to play God like that. And if you're so nihilistic as to prevent anyone from having any kids at all because it's 'cruel and selfish' then what's the point of humans existing at all?

The case isn't that women will be harrassed or sexually assaulted, the case is that there will be consequences if they dress a certain way, and I think revealing clothes will get more unwanted attention

How exactly? My understanding of equity is an equality of outcome in which case everything before is controlled by an authority figure, which is the exact opposite of freedom

Disgree, I think discrimination is wrong regardless of intention

" 'The end result doesn't matter so long as people are treated equally' is contradictory"

No it isn't. If Usain Bolt were to win a race against me then I'd just argue it's biased against me, should we hamper him in some way so that we both finish at the same time? That would be an equality of outcome. If I'm given the same training plan and diet as him he'd still crush me, but we are treated equally. How is it fair to him to be held back just because I can't keep up? I can just find another subject in which I'm naturally better than him at.

Of course life is like a race, capitalism is bred on competition. People are by nature not equal, it's silly to try and pretend everyone can be equally good at everything.

Some people are naturally more intelligent than others which no amount of education can balance, what is your solution for that?

And how are you going to discriminate between those who need extra help and those who don't? Based on race? Gender? Height? Sexual identity? Intelligence? How far does it go?

How are gender and race inequalities unnatural?

I wouldn't define that as equity as there is still not an equality of outcome. There's still a clear winner and loser

I'd say the capitalist system isn't designed at all, it's allowing people the freedom to choose any career path they wish. Any inequalities which are generated would be due to a lack of qualities which are unwelcome in any system, like poor timekeeping, bad work ethic, etc. Perceived inequalities, such as 'why aren't there more women CEO's' is the results of a lack of suitable candidates.

What support would you actually give them other than education? How would you differentiate who needs support and who doesn't? Would it be based on race or gender or based on the individual? What's the plan?

I think this is fairly obvious as a child is the ultimate outcome. Pleasure is a secondary benefit

Is there a fair level of inequality?

It's a sad reflection on entitlement that you consider drinking water basic

All clean water is the result of someone's hard work. Bottled water companies provide a handy way of transporting it and guarantee that their water is clean and they should be compensated for it. I don't think that's a sad reflection on society, just an indication that nothing is for free

More restrictions do not make a free market, that just doesn't make sense. The only monopolies that exist do so because the government has made it harder for competition, outside of this monopolies do not exist. 10 years ago MySpace had a monopoly on social networking.

Political tyranny has absolute power, corporate tyranny falls at the will of the people

How does cultural diversity make a country safer? Surely two opposing cultures causes greater friction

None of that gives you the right to take a human life