This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
Well Keero, martial arts, by definition, encourage violence because without it's use, you can't participate. The trainers don't tend to encourage people to be generally violent though, in my experience.
That's not strictly speaking true. Aikido is a nonviolent martial arts form.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Well Keero, martial arts, by definition, encourage violence because without it's use, you can't participate. The trainers don't tend to encourage people to be generally violent though, in my experience.Martial Arts are not about going out and beating a person bloody; they are about learning self control, discipline and good mental health, and of course self defense.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
Sorry, Jubilee, but the wiki article refers to offensive moves, and the use of weapons. It's martial, not nonviolent. I strongly agree with the premise behind it though; go with the flow, use the path of least resistance to your own advantage, let the fool defeat himself. If I had knees that worked, I might even try that as a discipline, not as a competitive sport.
Aikido weapon training is about defense, not attacking. And if you read the article you mention, you will see that offensive moves are only taught to learn how to defend against them.
The key is that you couldn't have any real violence between two Aikido martial artists, as everything is a response.
Post by
Thror
Martial Arts are not about going out and beating a person bloody; they are about learning self control, discipline and good mental health, and of course self defense.
Quite a few martial arts are actually meant for real combat situations. In a real combat situation, you do not want to slightly ruffle up your opponent and score 10 points, but rather dispatch/kill your opponent fast, efficiently, and with minimal risk.
What do people think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs_AYfJfErw
? It's two Irish traveller families (despite my username, I have no connection with these sort of people) sorting out a family dispute, without resort to guns or arson, which is common in Irish traveller feuds. It's brutal, and horrible to watch, but isn't it better than the alternative, given that these people live outside the law? I'd rather they sat down with a mediator and talked, but... It is considered "sport" between Irish travellers, because a lot of money is made and lost on betting on the fight.
Brutal, you say...
Post by
Adamsm
Martial Arts are not about going out and beating a person bloody; they are about learning self control, discipline and good mental health, and of course self defense.
Quite a few martial arts are actually meant for real combat situations. In a real combat situation, you do not want to slightly ruffle up your opponent and score 10 points, but rather dispatch/kill your opponent fast, efficiently, and with minimal risk.
Of course; but they still aren't intentionally teaching you how to be a violent slavering maniac.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Debate Topic #3: Should convicted felons retain the right to vote?
Rights
by state on this topic.
Post by
FatalHeaven
In response to this topic I feel that since felons are still affected by the laws made by politicians, they should retain the right to vote. Laws could be made about the court system or anything else that might have an impact on their lives. Since they are still a part of our democratic society, it would be wrong to take away the right to choose the people affecting them.
Not to mention a point that was brought up to me by a friend just now: By stripping a convict of their rights we have decided as a nation that the rights listed as the basic rights of man in the Bill of Rights are nothing more than privileges that can be taken away at any time.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Yep. They should lose the right to vote. A felon isn't JUST a person that commits a crime, but a person who commits a crime bad enough to get sent to prison for at least a year. If my money went to house and feed them for a year because they damaged someone/something else, then no, they don't get a say in how government is run. I have a hunch most felons would vote democrat, though. It wouldn't surprise me if the party that would benefit the most would try to push that through. That would be why Obama is granting amnesty, and fighting Florida vote purges... because he stands to gain.
Post by
Squishalot
A felon isn't JUST a person that commits a crime, but a person who commits a crime bad enough to get sent to prison for at least a year.
Is that the definition of a 'felon'? So if someone gets sentenced for 10 months, they're not a felon?
By stripping a convict of their rights we have decided as a nation that the rights listed as the basic rights of man in the Bill of Rights are nothing more than privileges that can be taken away at any time.
That's a very good point. What's to say that other rights can't similarly be stripped away?
Post by
FatalHeaven
Yep. They should lose the right to vote. A felon isn't JUST a person that commits a crime, but a person who commits a crime bad enough to get sent to prison for at least a year.
Not entirely true. I have family members who are 'convicted felons.' One spent a total of 72 hours in county jail. The other spent approximately 5 months in the same county jail. Not prison mind you, and certainly not for a year. They were arrested for the same crime they supposedly committed together. I will not say for certain whether they were guilty or not. I was 12 at the time. Do I believe they committed the crime? No, I do not. But I can't prove it. The plaintiff was deemed 'Unfit to be called to witness'. In this crime, there were no weapons involved, no one was physically harmed in anyway. Now forgive me, but thats as much as I am willing to say regarding the case in respects to them. They paid their debt. Both financially and via incarceration. They both had 5 years of mandatory parole which they both completed without a single hiccup. Do I think they should lose their right to vote? No, I do not. Family or not.
I have a hunch most felons would vote democrat, though.
Funny, both of the people I speak of are strongly republican.
Post by
FatalHeaven
A person convicted in a court of law of a felony crime is known as a felon. In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.
Source:
Wikipedia
So if I read this correctly, it's if the crime itself is punishable by one year or more in prison. Doesn't mean the sentence was carried out in a federal prison nor does it mean someone can't be released far sooner than a year.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Well, well. me and MyTie get to debate on opposite sides of an issue for once.
For those that don't know, I am a recovering drug addict. 10 years ago I was convicted of Felony possesion of a controlled substance, and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. While I only served a very small part of that actually "behind bars", I still get to serve the rest of my life with the tag of being "a felon".
Now, first off, I deserved what I got. No one forced me to use drugs. I knew they were illegal, and I knew what would happen if (when) I got caught. At the time I was arrested, even I will agree I had no right to be walking the streets, let alone voting.
But, I served my time. I paid my fines, and court costs, and restitution, and attorney fees (a total of nearly $20,000), and I did 700 hours of community service. I made it through 5 years of supervised probation (which I also paid $300 a month for 5 years for), and was released with not a single mark against me during the time I was under supervision.
I have been 100% sober from all drugs and alcohol for 10 years next month. I have been a sponsor for more than a dozen other addicts as well. I have had exactly 1 run-in with the law since then, which was a speed-trap speeding ticket that was thrown out of court.
I have owned a business, which at its prime, employed 31 people. I have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. After my business failed, I have held a job ever since. I have never collected a dime in unemployment.
By all standards, I have been a model citizen of my community and my country.
But I am, and always will be, a convicted felon.
Do I deserve the right to vote? (Honest answer please. I have long since made peace with the opposition here, so while I may argue my stance here, I will not take it personal)
Post by
FatalHeaven
If my money went to house and feed them for a year because they damaged someone/something else, then no, they don't get a say in how government is run.
Good point.
Further to that, most felons on the inside for an extended period of time possibly don't have a feel for whats going on in the outside world anyway, so are probably do not possess enough current political knowledge to make an informed decision, and cast a vote on who will be best to vote for.
Disagree. They get books, newspapers, television, radio and in some less common prisons, even monitored internet access. They are plenty able to keep up with the world.
But on this line of thought, you state 'for an extended period of time..." How do you define extended? 6 months? A year? 5 years? Where is the line drawn to determine whether or not you deem it possible for these 'felons' to know whats going on in the world?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
