Agree or Disagree?

Disagree.

I must respect my older brother no matter how much of an ass he is simply because the fact that he is my older brother.

One might say then that you respect your older brother, but not the person who is your older brother.

Naked Snake wrote:

Laughing_Man wrote:
False, people can respect people even if they're massive douches, because the media tells them to.

I agree that it's false, but for different reasons. Respect should be granted to someone as a courtesy, until they do something to screw it up. Then all bets are off.

Snake has a good point here. In LM's situation, the masses are being told and shown that these people deserve respect. This telling often glazes over the unsavory parts of the person, and the showing is completely warped. But, as far as the average person sees, these people have earned their respect. However, the average person also affords respect to those they meet out of courtesy, until, as Snake said, they do something to screw up that respect.

Laughing_Man wrote:

Redhood321 wrote:I disagree, for essentialy the same reason as snake- normally, someone has an initial amount of respect when you meet them, and they gain/loose more of that repect over time.

Have you ever met Albert Einstein?

If he walked in the room, would you not give him more respect than the other people in the room because it's ingrained in history that he's a genius?

Actually, red's point still stands. When you first hear the name "Albert Einstein," there is no inherent respect to it. You afford this name the same amount of respect that you would any other name in history. But then, you hear about everything he's done. Over time, he gains more respect. If there was a room full of every important guy and gal in American history, all living and breathing, a person who didn't know what any of them had done would have the same amount of respect for each of them, until they started talking with them and found out their importance.

Redhood321 wrote:I didn't say you would show the same amout of respect for everyone.

Titles tend to earn people more respect on the first meeting. For instance, Alexander the Great. If it was just Alexander, no one would pay him much mind. Things like the way they're standing, where they're standing in the room, and what they're doing also play key roles in how much respect they're given. If you saw someone standing at the front of the room, with rows of chairs facing them, standing upright and smiling, they'd get respect. If you saw the same person sitting on the ground, slouching their shoulders and picking their nose, you'd be more inclined to laugh at them.

Mercy wrote:I must respect my older brother no matter how much of an ass he is simply because the fact that he is my older brother.

The respect for your older brother, then, comes from a respect for whoever said you had to respect him. I respect my older brother, not because I'm told to, which I'm not, but because he owns up to the fact he is indeed a jerk.

To TDG's point, I respect the President of the United States. I do not, however, respect Barack Obama. I respect the title, not the man.

I respect the title, not the man.

A valid point. People in authority are often respected because of their position, not for what kind of person they are. Famous people throughout history and in present day harness respect because of their accomplishments, not because they're outgoing people.

So therefore, Respect is often relative to achievment and position. But, should it be that way? I mean, should someone have more respect than another because of what they've done? Should all these famous people like Albert Einstein or these doctors trying to find the cure for cancer be more respected than the average single mom striving hard to make ends meet, the average Joe's and Joanna's?

I think they should. The way I see it, there is a base respect for being alive. You have rights, and I respect that. I respect that you have thoughts, opinions, needs, and emotions.

After that, title comes in to play. Teacher gets more respect than student. Principal gets more respect than teacher. Janitor and secretary get a whole lotta respect, because they are good people to have on your side.

Then, intelligence. I respect those who can think, those who think creatively, and those who try to better themselves.

After that, fame comes in to the picture. If I've never heard of the guy, I'll likely not know to respect him. Yeah, it's unfair. Yes, it's not a perfect system. But if you're unnoticed, you're not going to get respect.

Everyone gets respect until such a time as they no longer deserve it due to their actions and how one perceives them. Respect is a pretty easy thing to muster and give to people. All it really requires is treating them nicely, and like a human being.

And thats just how it is. On to the next statement:


Week 9: Man can't change Man.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

Eh, depends on your definition of man, you always choose these really whupsy phrases that lead more to wonder about the matter at hand than the actual subject matter. Seems like people spend more time debating under what circumstances such and such is true, rather than agreeing or disagreeing.

But anyway no. One person cannot change another. Ultimately if a person is willing to die rather than change than there is little anyone can do to change them. The only caviought would be that few people, particularly these days, are unwilling to change in the face of death, and if one values something over another, than they might be willing to change the lesser in order to retain the greater.

Agree.

People can change, yes, but people cannot change each other. There are a lot of very stubborn people in the world. There are even more people, though, who, once implied to be wrong, get very uppity and argumentative.

Changing someone can be construed as telling them their current whatever is wrong, which is not met with praise these days.

Time for a new statement:

Week 10:Alcohol Consumption should be banned in the U.S.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

Well first off I applaud you for your choice of a nice solid rock hard statement this time around.

And second, disagree.

Stupid is as stupid does and that last time Alcohol was outright banned all it did was invite the mob to run the liquor industry instead of the government. Though I am all in favor of organizing crime I am whole heartedly against the outlawing of any consumable substance for just this reason. As it is most if not all organized crime is funded at least in part by illegal drug sales, adding Alcohol to the mix is just expanding their market.

I would suggest instead, legalizing everything, but strictly regulating it.

Yeah, Prohibition flew about as far as the Spruce Goose. Making alcohol illegal is only going to put the money into the people that sell it illegally. I'd be okay with increasing punishments for people that are caught driving drunk, but not making alcohol illegal. That won't change much of anything.

You ban alcohol you destroy millions of jobs depending on it. That's such a terrible idea. Like banning cigarettes, bad for you? Sure. Banning it because "The Government Knows Best"? What the hell, why destroy so many jobs depending on the tabacco industry? Without it, there wouldn't be America. Its like in California, I believe they're trying to limit consumption of unhealthy food for the obvious reason that its unhealthy; this is because the Government knows whats best for you. Unhealthy? Sure, but its fun to hang out and have a shot with several friends, its fun to eat junk food at the movies, its an industry.

Mercy wrote:Sure, but its fun to hang out and have a shot with several friends, its fun to eat junk food at the movies, its an industry.

So is human trafficking. That's illegal.

Damn government, telling me what's best. If I want to move a fourteen year old Filipino girl across state lines in a crate, I'm bloody well going to, and no Socalist Oh-Bammer Moose-Lamb CommuNazi Kenyan from Indochinesia is gonna tell me otherwise.

Seeing as you didn't really agree with me, do you believe that Alcohol should be banned?

Obviously human trafficking is wrong and should be illegal, but you're putting harm on another person, not yourself, as an overdose of alcohol would do to your own body.

Mercy wrote:Seeing as you didn't really agree with me, do you believe that Alcohol should be banned?

Obviously human trafficking is wrong and should be illegal, but you're putting harm on another person, not yourself, as an overdose of alcohol would do to your own body.

Nobody is trying to ban alcohol, and no modern day alcohol prohibition movement would ever succeed. It was your vitriolic assertion that the daggum socialists are trying to take away your rights that I wanted to disagree with. If your prime argument for something's continued legality is the presence of an industry around that something, then we can always take a look at the short-list of industries which government regulation has put an end to. Then you can explain to me how the government should not have intervened.

By the by, I live in California. What you described happened in exactly one city, and it was regarding toys being put into Happy Meals. Learn2currentevents.

Well I was just going on about..

Week 10:Alcohol Consumption
should be banned in the U.S.

No way that's happening.

On the whole California thing, I'm not really up to date, its not what I sit down to study. Like I also heard about trying to control the thermostat in some city in California as well. If the Government is behind that, that's just down right retarded. I'm sure there are many things the Government has done to prevent things I too disagree with, but there are other things that are just stupid.

On the whole California thing, I'm not really up to date, its not what I sit down to study. Like I also heard about trying to control the thermostat in some city in California as well. If the Government is behind that, that's just down right retarded. I'm sure there are many things the Government has done to prevent things I too disagree with, but there are other things that are just stupid.

What you're referring to is most likely happening at the local level, if at all, meaning the city council, not those fuddrucking socialists who have painted the White House red and fly the Kenyan flag over Arlington.

Or, you know, it could be related to the fact that there is a gross shortage of fossil fuels in the world...

Anyway, alcohol. It's a ridiculous question because it's never going to come up ever again, but no, it shouldn't be banned.

Well for one, minimum wage is a terrible idea. Around my area minimum wage is like $7.50, Karma says its about the same where she's at too. I know in NYC its close to if not more around the $7 range.

The government thinks they're helping people out by making the minimum wage really high, when actually they're harming people.

Say you're a business owner hiring new employees, you must give the person you're hiring $7.50 an hour. That's way too much if they don't have any credentials, and if you do have experience, you have to have an outstanding resumé. You have to do exceptionally well during your interview, that's why its so hard to get a job. Businesses are scared to hire people for $7.50 an hour. If the minimum wage was $3 you could hire more people, thus have a larger workforce, have more businesses prospering, and I could finally get a job so if I do well it'll go on my resumé and when I want to get a permanent career, my future boss would know I did well in the small jobs and know I can take on larger challenges.

Okay reread the explaination.. Kinda confusing, but its almost 3:00 my time and my mind is in like 3 different places right now and they're all trying to stay awake. Don't mean to sound confusing as hell.

Mercy wrote:The government thinks they're helping people out by making the minimum wage really high.

Are you kidding me? You think your minimum wage is HIGH? You do realize that it's pretty much the worst that first world nations have to offer, yeah?

I mean hell, the minimum wage here is at $10.25 right now with plans of reaching $11 by 2012. And that's still keeping people in poverty.

$3 an hour translates to just over $6000 a year, assuming a standard 40 hour work week. That is before taxes.

You honestly think that allowing businesses to do that will be beneficial to people? You honestly think people will be able to SURVIVE on that? That's barely enough money to FEED yourself, let alone pay for bills, rent and save for retirement.

Here's the thing about minimum wage. It has to rise to keep up with inflation of cost of living.


Besides, you already HAVE minimum wage of less than $3 in your country for waitresses.

Mercy wrote:HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG MINIMUM WAGE HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

Oh good lord, that was hilarious. Funny stuff Mercy, funny--wait a second, you're serious, aren't you?

Well, congratulations. You officially have no idea what you're talking about. Please feel free to never chime in on the subject of economics ever again.

Wait, minimum wage is $10.25 over there? Goddammit, I'm in the wrong job! And country...

I'm not talking about having minimum wage as a living wage. That doesn't make sense. Of course you can't live on your own on $3 an hour, but for people who are trying to find a job, they're required to pay them a high wage without knowing how they really work in their business. If you perform well than they can give you raises and offer you higher positions.

Besides, you already HAVE minimum wage of less than $3 in your country for waitresses

I heard a waitress at ''Steak N Shake'' say that, but I thought she was lying to guilt my dad into giving them a big, BIG tip. o.o

I don't see much wrong with Alcohol, as long as its consumed in moderation. But with society encouraging the ''LETS GET WASTED'' mentality, especially the music industry, it seems that more and more are orienting themselves with alcohol irresponsibly and that includes underaged teens. Which is sad. The human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 20, and they are already impairing it with the excessive use of a depressant.

But not many people are actually interested in the *improvement* of teens nowadays. Its much easier to just shake our heads and talk about how lost this generation is.

I think its sad that some people can only find comfort in their own intoxification. Alcoholics, in my opinion, are no better than emo cutters. Both are harming themselves in some way.

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:I heard a waitress at ''Steak N Shake'' say that, but I thought she was lying to guilt my dad into giving them a big, BIG tip. o.o

Nope, it's true. That's why in the USA people are SUPPOSED to tip, because you are paying over HALF their wages personally. The idea behind it is that because of the wait staff being paid $2.15 an hour, the owner of the restaurant can and will charge less for the meal, thus allowing you to take the money you save on the meal and give it directly to your waitress.

The problem with this is that restaurant owners want to maximize profits, so they aren't GOING to lower food costs. They are going to soak in more Profits. And even the ones that DO lower food costs for their consumers have the problem of non-tippers.

An average rule for tipping in the USA is a bare minimum of 15% even if your service was simply the waitress doing her job adequitly, because that's what YOU the consumer are supposed to pay her to do. If I'm eating in the USA, I average a 30% tip though (with a minimum flat tip of $5) because god damn that is such a crappy way to make money.

To keep this on the topic of alcohol though, bartenders ALSO get less than minimum wage in the US. So tip after your beers dagnabbit!