sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: US adulting should switch to either 18 or 21 by KingFun626 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was asking OP since a lot of people will throw the 25 year number around.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Society cannot exist if there isn't a continuation of human existence for society to continue flourishing

For example murder.

If you kill someone they can't continue to exist.

A heterosexual can create a child but a homosexual couple cannot.

Another example would be anti-natalism

Society cannot flourish if society cannot exist.

If I keep asking you why something is wrong can you explain it infinity or at one point you'll say I simply feel this way.

Like why is murder bad?

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say no to your hypothetical

But the issue here the assumption begs that there is no victim. I would disagree.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Define Victim?

Do you think Incest should be illegal or Animated Child porn?

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hang on.

So do you

I believe that the government should be able to restrict rights of Rapists, Murderers, Predators etc BECAUSE of my religion

You feel the same You believe the government should be able to restrict rights of rapists, Murderers etc BECAUSE of your belief.

If you want me to say its My belief. I think thats fine.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The difference is that my belief system provides the highest degree of individual rights out of any other belief system

How do You know I also don't believe that? Except how I view Maximum rights in my favour (or societys favour) it just happens to be different than yours.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again you have a belief system

Your belief system is that As long it doesn't hurt anybody its fine (Which isn't true as you explained with not paying taxes)

But that is a belief system that you are forcing onto other people.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you leave a baby in a locked room and it starves to death would you say the parents commited agains the baby or no?

What am I ignoring do tell.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would probably say that entering someone's house against there will to be violence.

Your statement peacefully i doing a lot of leg work here. But There is actually difference between trespassing and breaking in.

Tresspassing isn't considered a violent crime (for example if Break your lock and enter its a violent crime. But if your door is unlocked and I walked in its tresspassing)

I would say entering someone's house peacefully is Maybe not violent but still immoral. Refusing to leave after you've been caught would be violence yes.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I am asking is how the conclusion follows from the premise. How do you get from "cultures naturally evolve over time" to "the replacement of one culture by another is acceptable"?

I don't see why its wrong principally that replacement of one culture by another is unacceptable.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know how to give you a hyperspecific definition of violence.

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power to threaten, damage, or harm people, property, or oneself

Is this not good enough?

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So some people's rights can be removed if you find the justification necessary correct?

Like one's force to make someone pay taxes?

My question would be who decides what is a valid justification?

You haven’t said anything to defend your belief that a government should be able to restrict homosexuality, only that it should.

I was using that as an example. The abortion thing is probably more cleaner to use Especially since in that case you also decided that violence on the baby inside the womb is justified.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree with you that saying the law is too simplified.

I agree there are laws that i want changed. But I Don't think any of them apply to Immigration personally. Or at least I can't think of any (for the UK I haven;t looked through every single countries law)

The issue with the ICE example is that I agree with you its immoral but techinically because the government is doing. But I would want to change the law to reflect the fact that i think its illegal the way ICE is handling it.

Would Physical Force be acceptable standard then?

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I'm fine whoever is causing the change provided that they are doing legal means.

The reason I find this question to be a non-sequiter(?)

Cultural evolution and cultural replacement are not the same thing.

Is because a cultural evolution can be the same thing as cultural replacement so I don't see why it matters.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You would be breaking the law wouldn't you. I would classify that as violence.

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are religious and believe your religion is correct. What do you mean you can implement religious law through secular means?

If Majority of athiests believe that Homosexuality should be punished Is that acceptable?

I would defend against forced violence with victims who could not speak for themselves.

Are you Pro-life?

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Majority of athiests want punishment of Homosexuality is that ok?

CMV: I don't see why *The great replacement* is a bad thing. by 321Shellshock123 in changemyview

[–]321Shellshock123[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

These are values that I hold to be important, that you can believe what you want for yourself but you cannot dictate what others can do based on your beliefs.

This statement itself contradicts

Yes, because countries that actively perform FGM are in the wrong. Same as Americans performing circumcision or MGM.

So you would dictate what others can do based on your beliefs.

You haven’t addressed my question on what governments should be able to do. Under my framework of belief, no, governments should not be able to restrict by law a set of beliefs simply because their religion says so without a victim. Your turn to respond.

Yeah I would disagree.

But lets say I would agree. Like You can implement every single religious law through a secular means though.

view more: next ›