This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
They absolutely should. Though for a completely
different reason
than the religious usually have.
I wonder if I expressed my views of just how pathetic and ignorant I think you are for being an atheist if it would be accepted here the way you can express your opinion of people that have faith?
Ahahahaha, you're hilarious. Please tell me how not believing in a god with zero proof of existence is ignorant.
Magician is pointing out how unacceptable Doc's article is, by showing the double standard. It's perfectly acceptable to lam-blast religion on this board, but condemn atheism and you better brace yourself.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
Wait........... HE WON A NOBEL PEACE AWARD? When? and in heaven's name WHY? are those people insane?
Happened right at the beginning of his presidency. It was before he had even had much chance to do anything.
I don't know of anyone who thinks he deserved it. Including Obama himself.
hummm wasn't the point o the award to be given AFTER you do something that deserves it? I mean, you don't see soldiers getting nominated for the Medal of Honor because "they will" be valiant in a war, they get it because they WERE valiant already in a war.
Post by
MyTie
Ahahahaha, you're hilarious. Please tell me how not believing in a god with zero proof of existence is ignorant.
Magician is pointing out how unacceptable Doc's article is, by showing the double standard. It's perfectly acceptable to lam-blast religion on this board, but condemn atheism and you better brace yourself.
I see no double standard. I linked an article which he thought was rude, and in return he acted like an petulant child. I sent an email to the mods to ask if the article, his response and a similarly insulting post I planned to make were acceptable, but got no response.
What you're referring to as a double standard is just being outnumbered, which you'll probably find everywhere on the internet except specialist religion websites.
I admit I'm not fully informed on the entire conversation between you and Magician. I will say that the double standard, though common on the internet, isn't right, regardless of what Magician and you talked about.
If the slant were the other way, and everyone were a preacher, explaining how people were so wrong if they don't believe in God, and how they are going to end up in a bad place after death, how tolerable would that be? Would you speak out against it? Look at how I responded to your article. I don't think that you shouldn't be able to post it. I don't think it is particularly out of line. However, I wouldn't have posted it. I refrain from posting articles that are religiously slanted, especially as harsh as yours was. It was an attack on religion. Try to frame what you think an equally venomous attack on atheism would sound like from a religious mind. How would you be swayed by that religious mind's argument? What would you think? If you pointed out how that isn't very helpful or welcome, what argument could be used to sway you that it actually was a helpful argument to bring to the table? I'm saying put yourself in my shoes here.
Post by
Lombax
Try to frame what you think an equally venomous attack on atheism would sound like from a religious mind.
Can speak for Doctor but personally I would find it both ridiculous and hilarious.
Post by
Orranis
you better brace yourself.
Not really. We get more lambasting from you when we insult religious belief more than anything. The problem is that you really can't insult an Atheist through religion because while you do adhere to concepts like ridiculousness and logical fallacy (how an Atheist tends to insult Religion), but because we don't share your concepts of heresy there's really no way we can feel insulted. At the very worst you could say we have a double standard against insulting our beliefs pertaining to God.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
The problem is, I don't see that as an attack. A study found the religious tend to know less about religion, and he offered some ideas as to why. Were the results reversed, my reaction would be "Hm, that's interesting" instead of "Well of course".
It's not the article itself, I'm thinking. I understand that atheists tend to know more about religion so they can explain why they don't believe.
The article itself, however, was incredibly inflammatory and highly offensive. Everything he said could have been said differently.
Also, before you call me out, I've done everything he said. I've read every holy book in my religion (The New Testament, the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants), cover to cover (a couple thousand pages(, by myself without conversing with anyone about it.
And guess what? I'm still a believer.
Post by
Atik
Wait........... HE WON A NOBEL PEACE AWARD? When? and in heaven's name WHY? are those people insane?
Happened right at the beginning of his presidency. It was before he had even had much chance to do anything.
I don't know of anyone who thinks he deserved it. Including Obama himself.
hummm wasn't the point o the award to be given AFTER you do something that deserves it? I mean, you don't see soldiers getting nominated for the Medal of Honor because "they will" be valiant in a war, they get it because they WERE valiant already in a war.
Which is why everyone was confused when he got it.
Even Obama, as he was being awarded it, had a sort of "Why am I getting this thing?" look on his face.
If you are asking why he accepted it; it would be a political nightmare to turn it down.
Post by
MyTie
The problem is, I don't see that as an attack. A study found the religious tend to know less about religion, and he offered some ideas as to why. Were the results reversed, my reaction would be "Hm, that's interesting" instead of "Well of course".
I'm a preacher. Let me quote your article:Preachers, on the other hand, know that knowledge of the Bible can often lead to atheism, so they prefer the flock listen to the preacher talk about the Bible (which the preacher can edit as he sees fit), rather than read it themselves. This is how they make a (tax free) living.Not an attack?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#32: Should the legal driving age be raised?
The age at which you can legally drive varies from country to country
1
, but in many places it is lower than 18. In some American states it is 15 or younger. Usually you are allowed to take a driving test a year or more before you can vote or drink alcohol. As young drivers are the ones most likely to have accidents
2
, from time to time there are calls to raise the driving age. In the past two years lawmakers in the US states of Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois and Massachusetts have debated raising their driving age
3
, although these attempts are unlikely to change anything in the foreseeable future. The British government has also recently considered lifting the driving age in the UK from 17 to 18
4
, although it seems unlikely to go ahead with this change.
This topic assumes that the age should be raised to 18, but the arguments will still work for any number higher than the present legal driving age in your state. Many European countries already have a driving age of 18, so they might debate raising it to 21. Most of the arguments will also work for a debate on limiting how young people can drive.
Some Points
For
:
Young people are generally more technologically capable, and are more likely to be distracted by mobile media devices than older people.
Driving is considered to be an 'adult responsibility' similar in nature to drinking or smoking cigarettes, and should therefore carry the same age restrictions.
Every study carried out in this field shows that younger drivers are more likely to be involved in serious accidents - raising the age would make the roads a safer place.
Government has a responsibility to restrict driving to make it safer.
Some Points
Against
:
For many young people the ability to travel is essential for their livelihood.
Pure statistical analysis and stereotypes of 'reckless boy-racers' should not be blanketly applied to an age group.
Learning to drive is an important point in the social development of children - a quantifiable point at which they become more like adults. Were this taken further away, young people would be more frustrated and immature.
List of variations in legal driving age
Safe Roads Partnership, "Young and Newly Qualified Drivers"
Firestone, 2001
BBC News article “Driving age ‘must increase to 18”, 19 July 2007
Post by
Magician22773
#32: Should the legal driving age be raised?
Regardless of what age a new driver gets their license (within reason, of course), they are still going to be a "new" driver. So whether someone gets their license at 16, 18, or 21, the statistics of what age group has the most accidents is just going to follow.
In Missouri they changed the law quite a bit from when I turned 16, to when my son turned 16. When I recieved my license, the only (legal) experience I had behind the wheel of a car was two 30 minute road tests in a Driver Education class. Thats it. Pass the written test, and get 70% or better on a 15 minute driving test and here's your license. No surprise that I put my Mom's car in a ditch less than 8 hours after getting my license :-)
Now, you get a learners permit at 15 that allows you to drive legally with a parent or guardian, and in fact, requires you to have at least 40 hours of road experience, with at least 10 at night, before you can get your license.
There are also major restrictions on your license when you do get it at 16 now. No more than 1 passenger in the car, no driving between 12am and 5am (except for emergency or work....not sure what 16 year old works 3rd shift...but thats not the point), and ANY infraction that counts points against you, such as speeding, or causing an accident, during the first year, results in an instant revocation of your license.
At 17, you can have 2 passengers, and can have 1 violation. The time restrictions still are in effect.
At 18 you finally get a full, unrestricted license, providing you have not been disqualified at any time during the "graduated" period between 16 and 18.
I really like this method better than just getting tossed onto the road like I was. I was able to actually "teach" my son to drive, rather than let him learn after he got his license.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Not really. We get more lambasting from you when we insult religious belief more than anything. The problem is that you really can't insult an Atheist through religion because while you do adhere to concepts like ridiculousness and logical fallacy (how an Atheist tends to insult Religion), but because we don't share your concepts of heresy there's really no way we can feel insulted. At the very worst you could say we have a double standard against insulting our beliefs pertaining to God.
You are right, Orranis. I can't insult you, or better yet, I won't. You do not believe as I do, so my words have no effect on you. That is why you, and others like you, have to hide on the internet, where you can say things that you would not have the balls to say in the real world. But, in the end, you will not have a keyboard and a monitor to hide behind.
It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"
The key word there is
every
........
you
too
will
bow before God, and you
will
be cast out, but not before you see Him, and you will spend eternity seperated from Heaven, and all its glory.
That is why I have no need, or desire to insult you here and now, because I know what your fate is in the end......and I know mine as well.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##I get that you two don't see eye-to-eye on this topic... and I think the entire community here who frequents this thread also knows that. So, how about the two of you just stop discussing this particular topic with each other? It's clear neither of you will agree and come from two completely different places. Also, since this conversation isn't related to the current debate; let's try to stay on topic when the subject changes, ok? Thank you.
Post by
Nathanyal
There are also major restrictions on your license when you do get it at 16 now. No more than 1 passenger in the car, no driving between 12am and 5am (except for emergency or work....not sure what 16 year old works 3rd shift...but thats not the point), and ANY infraction that counts points against you, such as speeding, or causing an accident, during the first year, results in an instant revocation of your license.
Before the McDonald's I worked out was change to corporate instead of a private owner/operator, they would have 16 and 17 year olds work until 1 am or later on the weekends. I know because I would be the one doing that every Friday and Saturday. I was 17 at the time, but my friend that started a few months after I did was 16 and we would close the store together.
But now though, minors can only have a set amount of time to work and if they work more than 3 and a half hours they must take a break. The latest they can stay on a school night is 9:30, 10:30 on non-school nights. And they can't work before 7 am. If the break any of those laws they get a $2k fine.
But that is getting away from the main topic.
I agree with what Magician said:Regardless of what age a new driver gets their license (within reason, of course), they are still going to be a "new" driver. So whether someone gets their license at 16, 18, or 21, the statistics of what age group has the most accidents is just going to follow.
I don't think the driving age needs to be raised, I just think there needs to be a little more to letting someone get a license.
When it came to it, I didn't have the 40 hours of driving they wanted. And I had 0 hours driving at night. The most I drove was probably during the Drivers Ed class I took in HS, which wasn't that much. After the class, all I had to do was tell the people at the DMV that I took the class and passed. They gave me my license and I was set to drive on my own. No other questions asked.
Now I'm not a terrible driver, but the people at the DMV don't know that. And at school you can really determine how well of a driver you are because it is in a secure area. You don't have to deal with anyone else and how they drive.
Post by
PTsICU
Lower the age, no. Mandate annual testing for drivers over the age of 65, yes.
(and I'm 45, for the record).
I've seen many accidents occur at the hands of the elderly, who didn't have the capacity to drive a car (physical or mental).
Post by
Sas148
Lower the age, no. Mandate annual testing for drivers over the age of 65, yes.
(and I'm 45, for the record).
I've seen many accidents occur at the hands of the elderly, who didn't have the capacity to drive a car (physical or mental).
Agreed there. The accident statistics look like a giant punch bowl. High at a young age, just as high at an older age.
Post by
MyTie
There was a whole brouhaha about how offensive it is to the religious to use unicorns or teapots or whatever as examples in discussing ontology - which on the insult scale is pretty low. (And nobody ever managed to suggest any suitable replacement examples, either.)
Well...
Give me a way of explaining that atheists will burn in hell in a polite way, and I'll give you a way of explaining that my religion is as logical as a mythological beast in a polite way. The difference between me and you is I understand that telling the other side of this debate what I believe about their beliefs is pretty inappropriate, disrespectful, and futile. For some reason, this forum doesn't understand that what's bad for one side is probably bad for the other. There is a general lack of being able to put oneself in the other's shoes. As Lombax pointed out, it looks ridiculous when a religious person tries to preach to atheists, from the atheist's perspective. Shouldn't the double standard be painfully obvious here?
Edit: Dang... topic changes too fast sometimes. Some days there are like 4 posts for the entire day on the debate, others are a few pages long. Perhaps we could allow DOTD to run over into a few days on the really engaging topics? I'd really hate to move on from this onto age of driver's licenses (not that that isn't a spectacular topic, Fatal).
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.