?

Log in

The Debate Squad [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
debate_squad

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

contradictory equality. [Jan. 14th, 2006|01:19 pm]
debate_squad

perspectum
I can’t help but notice that often some women want who claim to desire full equality, but don’t mind the the old fashion goods like men holding a door open for a women (like a car door and her her "out", or hold a door open and let her pass through first, almost like on display), (yes i know holding door for someone behind u as u pass through it, or if they have their hands full can be considered polite, politeness isn;t what we're taling about here, its the old school chivalry type actions), or letting her get off the sinking boat first... pulling out her chair etc. they don’t mind if these stick around...

i dunno but to me... that seems a tad contradictory wouldn’t you say?

Is feminism and equality somehow taken to mean.. okay... i want equality but umm... i wanna pick and choose.
linkpost comment

Declaration of public union vows, marriage vs common-law [Oct. 12th, 2005|01:52 pm]
debate_squad

perspectum
There are so many traditional ritualistic things people do in life without question.
They blindly conform carrying out standard practices without much thought or question, often simply because it's the socially acceptable practice that is done, and has been done for years. Thus how can it be wrong for them as well?
To touch upon one of those long standing traditions is the "sanctity" of the public declaration of professed "love" for another called marriage. In modern days now, I myself feel its totally unnecessary, and I doubt I am alone in this thinking.
No one is property being handed over. Rings as symbolism for "ownership" are like awful brandings.
I think myself I will never marry, but rather if I feel like spending a desired length of companionship with another, will apt to just denounce this fact to ourselves, and disburse this information to outside sources as needed. On a need-to-know basis, that yes we are sharing a segment of our lives together as a "couple" together, side by side.
In everyday life, what does the fact of if I am "committed" to another make any difference? It shouldn't because it may only stand to perpetuate biases and formulate preconceived notions about parties involved and so forth.
Think of this as a sterile account if you wish, but to me, “love” is nothing more than a strong fondness felt at varying degrees for another. It is two people filling their belongingness needs. Settling. It’s also something that has taken on many faces to help perpetuate certain attitudes in life and help push products and services upon consumers, and give false hopes and senses of security to people.
In the eyes of our judicial system this sort of paring would be labeled as "common-law."
Financial attention is especially paid towards partnerships; and as it stand now in the eyes of most bordered countries this union is only recognized between the coupling of a male and a female. But in more progressive bordered places, this is expanded upon to include same-sex partnerships as well; and it seems only a natural occurrence in my eyes.
I mean hell, with all the degrees of variety we see in all other things in life, why shouldn't coupling be one too. We tolerate diversity in everything from races, creed, religion, language, social classes, economics, employment, attitudes, families, currencies, divisions of labour, products and services, automobiles, hair colour, brands, dress, etc.. the list is diverse itself.
I think if I felt the need to publicly declare my union with another human, I may make it a ceremony in which we'd be seen to almost mock the traditions of marriage and fill in "vows" with dialogue stressing that "we are not one another's property. "We will not brand ourselves with rings simply to declare unionship to the outside world; I don't not need to bare a ring to remind myself that I am in a relationship I think I can remember that quite well enough on my own, "We will not make promises that we may be unable to fulfill, its just logical that we cannot force things or predict any future." "Honoring and obeying are dated slavery and religious terms; and trust is something that is extremely fragile.” “Given the high divorce rates or the amount of time people are apt to dissolve their relationship with another, making claims such as “till death do we part", again is something we cannot foresee, and would be illogical to hypothesize .Instead we can use phrases as "we will try hard to work in ways that are suitable to us both to see that our friendship union is fulfilling and enjoyable and lasts as long as possible."
This is just yet another view, my own angle in the land of diversity which I will not let another stamp out.
linkpost comment

Juge Roberts vs The People of the United States [Sep. 30th, 2005|03:35 pm]
debate_squad

perspectum
Yeh, although i am not an American, I do believe that this is a huge step backward for the nation, ahem then ultimately leading to backward steps for the world, the trickle down effect.
one quote in the bbc article says alot:
"Conservatives will be pleased with Mr Roberts' record on abortion, church-state issues and the environment."

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4698685.stm

figures... the guy has been in the justice system during the reign of Regan and Bush Sr. and now like father like son.

""My own personal views would not be relevant," he told the hearing. "My practice has not been ideological in any sense.""

ummm buddy, isn't that a starting point where people base their decisions on? Personal judgment and beliefs is where ideologies and things that were turned eventually into laws derive from. Personally i disagree that there should be one and only one high priestess, i mean judge, its another dumb democratic ploy.

and... let us not forget the wonder judicial ruling involving Bush vs Gore in the election,
the judges decided to stop the recount because in buddy ‘ol Bush’s case they thought it "would violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment for all." but then again….
In the United States, the court itself can strike down a law, a right it had to acquire for itself by practice early on as the provision is not actually in the constitution itself.
Ahem.... ummm what about Gore's equal treatment?? Why couldn’t this matter been striked, and the re-count done? I mean come o.. it's plain as day, you see a huge alarming discrepancy like that.. you shouldn't run in the other direction like the conservatives are famous for, you go ahead and do the equal re-count, regardless if Jebby there is apart of Florida. Doing what they did not only did they deny Gore of his right to equal rights i think, they made is pretty clear that Bush wasn't so sure of his sealed fate, and that something was up, from day one. what was that.. not one.. but TWO botched elections!?? You REALLY want someone this stupid making huge decisions for you? How anyone could stand by the president after such display's, (and they just keep on coming...) is beyond me. I guess some rational thinking is beyond many movers and shakers in the States.
We blindly place our trust in those with any sort of power. We then, appoint power (and often beauty) to the wrong kind of people. Again, could John Roberts be one of those people?

the guy is only 50 and a white guy, he'll be around wrecking shit for entire generations! He's so concerned over the flag burning abolishment, big woops,A take your patriotism and shove it! There are more serious matters then if, little billy johnny is losing fait in his country and democracy.

He is all for Prayer in schools, hell even at grad ceremonies , wants to turn back the clock on issues such as abortions rights, and progress with enviro management,

I’ll believe it when I see it, but apparently, this man MAY BE a little sympathetic towards homosexual rights? If that is correct… we’ll wait and see… I mean any wind direction and opinion can be swayed if its just the right breeze.

One small step for Bush, one giant leap backwards for humankind.

although he supposedly did say this :"Mr Bush said Mr Roberts had "earned a reputation as one of the best legal minds of his generation" who has "earned the respect of people from both political parties."

hmmm all remains to be seen though.
linkpost comment

intelligent design - to be taught in american schools [Aug. 30th, 2005|02:39 am]
debate_squad

perspectum
Wtf… fuck this “intelligent design” bullshit. Just another stupid fundamentalist label to make religion disguised and somehow easier for people to swallow.


Follow the link below to take action on this important issue. Go to </a>
http://www.afa.net/petitions/intelligentdesign/takesurvey.asp

CAREFUL – they trick you… the spot to vote is on this link too before you sign your info, and the yes is already checked off. Use the postal code 1001 for n.y. (if you don't live in the states) and be sure to pass it along!
link2 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Mar. 14th, 2005|12:29 am]
debate_squad

freeloader101
North Korea and Iraq were both suspected of having WMDs. Iraq got bombed, and North Korea got pacified. The disparity is apparent. The real question is why? One theory is that Iraq had something the US wanted, oil. Another theory is that the US did not want to fight a two-front war, while some claim it's because of the pressure the Republicans have been placing on the President to finish what his father started. What do you think? What is the most plausible reason for the disparity? If you think it's just a matter of strategy, so that the US won't be forced to fight both North Korea and Iraq at the same time, then do you think the US will go after North Korea next?
link2 comments|post comment

Iraqi Pitaki [May. 5th, 2004|12:37 am]
debate_squad
mille_bornes187
[mood |revolutionary]
[music |k!ll the god damned government with a fu.cking sledge hammer]

Should the United States of Amerika continue to live under this debotchery that we give the name Democracy (aka 51% controls 49% as Mathew Edward Arkell so elequently put it) or should we finish our stage of national puberty and advance to a socialistic or anar.chistic society that doesn't allow itself to be governed and castrated by the wealthy few?
link4 comments|post comment

*lose control, of course. who wants to loose control? not me. [Mar. 12th, 2004|12:41 am]
debate_squad
mille_bornes187
________________DEBATE: Michael Moore- Friend or Foe?

There are a new brand of liberals out there representing our views in Amerika. You know them and have no doubt heard some of the funny but marvelous things that they say, like Al Franken, who has called people like Bill O'Reilly to account for their false journalism practices and their blatant lies to the unsuspecting amerikan sheep (or public, whichever word works best for you; haha, the bias is evident in almost everything i say... i'll have to learn to work on that!) But the question I come to ask you is about one such funny man: Michael Moore. He has been accused of using false or misleading information and statistics to prove his points, which is most definitely something that is a serious charge and should not be taken lightly. Here is the debate. Does Michael Moore do more harm than good, or is he a very crucial element to our cause (our cause being to learn the truth about our country, what policies actually harm working class amerika, and which don't, what is better for our nation, and what isn't) What is your opinion?

*also, conservies. if you choose to debate in this, please take one of the sides offered. either michael moore is good because yada yada yada, or he is bad because yada yada yada, in respect to his help and contribution to a more liberal american. not, does he personally p!ss you off. thanks.
link5 comments|post comment

Socialized Medicine [Mar. 8th, 2004|09:32 pm]
debate_squad

stupac2
I did this debate on my private journal and it degraded into name calling. So I wish to prevent that here.

For the sake of simplicity I'll say it like this, if the US Government were to subsidize the medicine industry, and offer free healthcare to all, would it be a good or a bad thing?

Now the most important part, WHY?

The way I see it there are two sides to this, economic and moral. The economic part is, I feel, against it, and the moral part, in my mind, is neutral. But I don't want to take up precious front page space so my argument will be posted as comment.

Have fun.
link9 comments|post comment

you are not the car that you drive. you are not your clothing. [Mar. 8th, 2004|03:49 am]
debate_squad
mille_bornes187
Hello everyone. How are we today? Thats fine. Well today I'd like to talk about possessions and how high we place them on our priorities list. Even though it is increadibly easy to say "I know that I don't need this such and such to be cool" it isn't being true to yourself (in most cases. most cases probably not being anyone who posts here; i have fairly high confidence in you all). But still, lets look at the general populis. Are these people what they eat? Are they the clothes that they buy? Are fashion symbols and styles a person expressing their individuality, or is it another cage, another trap that funnels you into a type of person by what you have purchased? What are your thoughts on this? Are they the sheep that I consider them to be? Or do they have minds of their own that aren't plugged into corporate conseption of status, rank, and individuality that we are told to be faithful to? Well, what is it?
link4 comments|post comment

Fight! Fight! Fight! [Mar. 4th, 2004|12:33 am]
debate_squad
mille_bornes187
Come on all you big strong men, uncle sam needs your help again, he's got himself in a terrible jam, way out east in towel head land. So put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gonna have a whole lot of fun! And its 1, 2, 3 What are we fighting for? Ain't no time to wonder why WHOOPIE! we're all gonna die.
______________________________________________________________
........THE......PROBLEM......................................

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/7/2003--Introduced.
Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

..............................................................
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the workforce...

What do you guys think of this one, eh? How would you like MANDETORY service with the United States Military? If this bill is passed, where do you stand on the issue? Will you go to college as quickly as possible? Will you FIGHT FOR FREEDOM!? Or will you be hot on my path out of this country as soon as (if) it is ever passed.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
link5 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]