title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
The freedom of Holocaust deniers to use to the internet legitimizes their organization and message in eyes of consumers When the internet places no moral judgments on content, and the gatekeepers let all information through on equal footing, it lends an air of legitimacy that these beliefs have a voice, and that they ... | |
A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize ... | |
While some people might be enticed by the mystique of Holocaust deniers as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the firm hand of the state denying them a powerful platform from which to speak. Even if some are enticed these individuals will find it much more difficult to access the information they seek an... | |
Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when there is a real harm manifested from it. Holocaust denial, in its refusal to acknowledge one of the most barbaric acts in human history and attempt to justify terrible crimes, is an incredibly dehumanizing force, one that many people suffer from, even if they do not nee... | |
The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be underm... | |
The organizers will go underground A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground. For example The Pirate Bay, a major bittorrent file sharing website, simply moved to cloud hosting providers around the world to prevent it being shut dow... | |
Denial of access adds mystique to their beliefs By denying people the ability to access sites set up by Holocaust deniers the government serves only to increase their mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the state opposes something so vociferously that it is willing to set... | |
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression No matter how unpalatable their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them. The very core of a free society is the right to express one’s mind freely, without hindrance from the state. When the state presumes to judge good speech from bad, and to shut of... | |
Forcing Holocaust deniers out of the spotlight and underground can only serve the cause of justice. Surveillance efforts can be employed more rigorously if need be, and will be considerably more legitimate to employ against these groups when their actions are acknowledged to be illegal. With them out of the spotlight t... | |
Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their ... | |
Is it really in the public interest that there should be a norm that government information should be shared? There are clearly some areas where we do not want our government to share information; most clearly in the realm of security, [1] but also where the government and through them taxpayers can make a profit out o... | |
The default of copyright restricts the spreading of information Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making the C... | |
The choice to release work into the viral market is a business decision creators should have the power to choose, not a mandated requirement for funding. Some may decide that they will profit and gain more recognition through releasing their work into the creative commons, others may not. It should be remembered that O... | |
If the public funds a product it belongs to them Everyone benefits and is enriched by open access to resources that the government can provide. A work is the province of its creator in most respects, since it is from the mind and hand of its creator that it is born. But when the state opts to fund a project, it too be... | |
There is a difference between the general public and the government. It is the government that bought the rights to the work not the people even if the people are the ones that originally provided the money to develop the work by paying their taxes. It can be considered to be analogous to a business. Consumers pay for ... | |
Creative commons allows existing work to be used as a building block by others The nature of the internet and mass media is such that many creators can benefit from the freedom and flexibility that creative commons licenses furnish to them. Creative commons provides vast benefits in allowing a creation to have life af... | |
The government should not be interested in the profit motive but what is best for its citizens which will usually mean creative commons licenses rather than the state making a profit. This is even more likely when developments are a joint project with a for profit operation; taxpayers will rightly ask why they should b... | |
Government is quite simply not ‘like everyone else’. If government acted like a profit maximising business it would clearly have the ability to turn itself into a monopoly on almost everything. This is why the role of government is not to make a profit but to ensure the welfare and freedoms of its citizens. | |
Creative commons is not a good option for many government works It is simply wrong to paint all government funding with one brush decreeing that it should only be spent if the results are going to be made available through creative commons. Governments fund a vast diversity of projects that could be subject to licensi... | |
Creative commons prevents the incentive of profit The incentive of profit, rather than a creative productive drive, spurs the creation of new work. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s work, the incentive to invest time and effort in its creation is significantly diminished. When the state is the only body wi... | |
Government, like everyone else, should be able to profit from its work, that profit benefits its citizens rather than harming them We generally accept the principle that people who create something deserve to benefit from that act of creation as they should own that work. [1] This is a principle that can be applied as... | |
While there will be a few cases where it is undesirable that things that the government pays the funding for to be licensed through creative commons this should not stop creative commons from being the default choice. Creative commons is a good choice for the vast majority of what government does as weapons systems and... | |
Protestant churches, which do not require celibacy, are also having problems recruiting clergy. Worldwide, the number of new priests is increasing. Only the developed world has seen a decline in priestly vocations, although even here devout countries such as Poland buck the trend. A recent study showed that vocations w... | |
Celibacy reduces the pool of people wanting to become priests The number of priests in developed countries is on the decline. In Ireland in 2007 160 priests died but only nine were ordained to replace them. It is expected that the number of priests in Ireland will fall from 4758 in 2008 to 1500 by 2028. [1] As a resul... | |
The priest is set apart from the world. He has a unique role: he represents Christ to his parishioners. Just as Jesus led a life of chastity dedicated to God, so a priest must offer his life to God’s people. | |
Priest have not always been celibate While celibacy had been encouraged since the beginning of the church, until the beginning of the twelfth century, when it was banned by the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139, Priests in the Western church were permitted to marry. [1] The Bible does not mandate celibacy and, in fact... | |
The earliest church fathers, including St Augustine, supported the celibate priesthood. In the fourth century, church councils enacted legislation forbidding married men who were ordained from having conjugal relations with their wives. We do not know if any of the apostles, other than Peter, were married, but we do kn... | |
Celibacy and paedophilia are not connected. Sexual abuse also occurs in religions where clergy are permitted to marry. Studies have shown that sexual abusers account for less than 2% of Roman Catholic clergy, a figure comparable to clergy in other denominations, or even less than in the wider male population as a whole... | |
Celibacy is outdated Priestly celibacy is out-dated. It sets the priest apart from the modern world and the experiences of his parishioners. Originally, around 1100 the Gregorian Reform movement in the church was keen to enforce celibacy for fear that too many married priests would leave church property and benefices ... | |
Celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men into the priesthood The prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men to the priesthood. They hope that by totally denying their sexuality, they will not engage in deviant acts, but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their deviant desires. Permitting priests to m... | |
Protestant clergy, for example in the Episcopal church which has similar parish structures to Roman Catholicism, successfully balance their work in the church and their families. Were priests permitted to marry and have families, their families could serve as examples to others. In addition, marriage can provide a prie... | |
Celibate priests can never experience the intimate and complicated marital relationship. They lack credibility when conducting marriage and family counselling. Married priests can better serve their parishioners because of their marital and family experiences. | |
Principles should be maintained even when it is convenient to change them The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the chu... | |
Celibacy allows a priest to devote himself entirely to his vocation A celibate priest can devote all his time to his parishioners. A married priest must spend time with his family. Protestant clergy have balanced their work for the church with their family responsibilities only with difficulty. Many wives and families... | |
Celibacy grants an understanding of self-control The celibate priest has a unique understanding of the power of self-control and the giving of self, which are key ideas in marriage. The celibate priest is in a very good position to counsel people on how to keep the marital vows such as fidelity as they have experience... | |
The insistence on priestly celibacy is one of the major stumbling blocks to church unity. Discussions with the Orthodox church (which has always allowed married priests) and protestant denominations such as the Episcopal (Anglican) church often founder on the different conception of priesthood held by the Catholic chur... | |
Many of the fiscal benefits enjoyed by married couples (e.g. child support payments) are not geared towards encouraging marriages in itself, but to promote the existence of the conventional family and procreation. Gay couples, unable to propagate society, should not be provided access to the benefits of marriage which ... | |
Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law t... | |
States cannot ask registrars to conduct civil marriages between homosexual couples that violate their religious precepts. How can a state that espouses multi-culturalism and respect for the faiths of its citizens thereafter declare it fair and impartial to ask a Christian registrar to conduct a homosexual marriage cere... | |
It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry One of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love ... | |
Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology. It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice,... | |
Marriage is most certainly about raising children and has always been regarded as the predominant means of creating a conducive environment in which children can be brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them. It is true that many he... | |
It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive cap... | |
Gay relationships do not contribute to the interest of the state in propagating society, therefore they should not be granted access to the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Furthermore, as David Blankenhorn argues, 'for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who... | |
State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples The state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars coul... | |
Gay marriage is good for society Gay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage... | |
It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a sing... | |
The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent... | |
Gay couples can declare their union without resort to marriage There are alternative means for gay couples to formalize their love without resort to marriage. In the United Kingdom, gay couples are able to form civil partnerships, which offer all the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage without the actual ceremony. M... | |
Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality Marriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend the right to marry to... | |
Marriage should be between a man and a woman Marriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required... | |
Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates The legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is starte... | |
Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marri... | |
The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed m... | |
Many people have been keen to wrap themselves in the trappings of religion just as they do in the flag or in the rhetoric of one political ideology or another. Seeking to associate one’s opinions with one creed or another is the oldest trick in the ideologue’s book. The fact that men of violence claim to be doing thi... | |
Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towar... | |
Secularism is a peculiarly Western European concern. In most of the world religious observance is taken very seriously. Denying people access to the guidance of religious leaders flies in the face of allowing people freedom of choice and conscience. Secularists routinely, and somewhat arrogantly, insist that their voi... | |
Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop the... | |
All of the major religions teach respect for others regardless of whether people agree with their lifestyle or beliefs. That’s a huge advance on much of secular thought – quite without the help of religious organisations, prejudice exists within the worlds of business, politics and science. It seems a little unfair to ... | |
Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience stil... | |
Religious education frequently has more to do with indoctrination than anything else, as is seen in so-called schools where reciting the Koran or Talmud passes for education or in privately funded education in the UK and US where evolution is taught as ‘just another theory’. In terms of tackling poverty, there is no d... | |
The simple reality is that religious organisations in most of the world are all too willing to involve themselves in ecumenical politics and issue declarations on economic matters. Equally, presenting the absurd and grotesque wealth and power of the world’s major religions as having anything to do with quiet spirituali... | |
Religious ceremonies and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this around the world At times of great need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the only organisations that seem fit to t... | |
Religious organisations are by far the largest providers of charity in the world Whether sending food support in famine zones, providing education, hospices or a vast range of other charitable activities, religious organisations are streets ahead. In addition they frequently are the only organisations willing to go in... | |
Religious organisations remind societies and the world that there are other important things in life beyond economics and that moral and other concerns should be taken into account in public life In a world consumed by the belief that the only thing in life that genuinely matters is money, religious bodies serve as a ... | |
It is an interesting defence of a position to note that people only really turn to it when they are emotionally vulnerable and their mental faculties are at their weakest. It’s scarcely a clarion defence of the benefits or religious observance or practice. It is no doubt true that when we need an explanation for the a... | |
To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers. This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons” [1] . We are al... | |
A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible. Every time a life is extinguished, some amount of present and future good vanishes from the world. All the good things that that person would have experienced – joy, accomplishment, delight – will no longer occur. Similar... | |
Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. ... | |
The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to sa... | |
The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time fo... | |
Assessing the value of a life on the basis of family members and how much the person is worth to everyone else creates a perverse priority on those with large families and many connections. To do so makes an injunction: position yourself so that you’re important and well-connected, and suddenly you get priority when we... | |
Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many While Rawls did oppose utilitarianism, he generated a hypothetical scenario that is useful, even to the utilitarian, for evaluating moral theories. Imagine that all human beings ... | |
The harms related to a death extend beyond the loss of life Every person who dies leaves behind people whose lives are made dramatically worse by the loss of a loved one. The average person, by continuing to live, helps those around them in a multitude of ways: love for their family, productive enterprise, and any phi... | |
Moral intuitions are even more unreliable than that. When the “kill one save five” dilemma is presented in the form of pulling a lever to divert a train onto a track with one person on it, most people say to do it. However, when it is presented as pushing a fat man onto the track in order to stop the train, most people... | |
Consequences do in fact matter more. People ought to be morally judged by what occurred when they had the power to decide who lives or dies; fatal non-action is just as blameworthy. This is the reason why many countries, particularly those with a civil law tradition as is the case in most of continental Europe, have Go... | |
We cannot make value judgments as to who should and should not be marked for death or for salvation Different people’s lives may indeed weigh differently. Some people may go on to cure cancer, while others may become serial killers. However, we do not know who will do what with their future, and it is an act of immens... | |
The act of killing can wreak immense psychological damage upon rational individuals To know that one has actually killed another human being will haunt the moral agent forever. Instances of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for soldiers returning for warzones are increasingly reported, suggesting that a situation of kill... | |
We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence Knowing that we have agreed that there are situations where we can decide to kill others for the greater good makes us fearful of the prospect of others visiting such judgment on us (independent of whether such an act is objective... | |
Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions betwe... | |
Utilitarianism is morally demanding If we recognize a duty to actively go out of our way (and indeed, carry the burden of killing another person) to save another person just because it’s in our power, then all sorts of new obligations open up. For instance, we are now obliged to donate all of our disposable income to ... | |
Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong While simply consulting our moral intuitions case-by-case is not always reliable (indeed many people have contradictory moral intuitions), certain moral intuitions are needed in order to morally theorize. If a moral th... | |
All the same harms apply if the moral agent lets the five die. They still must cope with the knowledge that their decision resulted in deaths, in fact, more deaths. Indeed, PTSD is brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death [1] . [1] Martynowicz, Daniel, ‘Af... | |
It is worse to actively participate in a death then to simply allow an individual to die While people die all the time, it is exceptionally rare for one human being to intentionally cause the death of another, even for a perceived “greater good.” The difference is that when one actively kills, one causes the killing. ... | |
The moral agent’s decision will not necessarily have such wide-ranging consequences. In many cases, the matter will remain fairly quiet (even if it is reported to the police). Furthermore, this is only dubiously a “killing” if one does not adopt a deontological take on the action; it’s simply a weighing of the benefits... | |
That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.” However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they ... | |
The words “under God” show no preference to Christianity. “God” can refer to the chief deity of any religion. The opposition does not accept that America’s history has a Christian state has any bearing whatsoever on the meaning of this statement. | |
Upholding of the First Amendment The First Amendment is that the state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.(Archives.gov) This prohibits favouring one religion over another.(Cornell University Law School, 2010) The use of the words “under God” in this w... | |
It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed. This change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have ... | |
Prevents the coercion of school children It is key to this debate that school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. Although they have the opportunity to opt out, the proposition does not believe they have the knowledge necessary to fully understand the oath that they are t... | |
Separation of state and religion The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhowe... | |
The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance woul... | |
The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children. | |
True neutrality would be adhering to the status quo; this legislation will be seen as a wilful act on the part of the government to remove religion and faith from patriotism. As a result, religious people are likely to feel sidelined and alienated by their government to a far greater extent than atheists are likely to... | |
Removing under god would promote religious tolerance Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity. This associates national pride with Christian... | |
Prevents the marginalisation of non-believers The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that there is no place for atheism in American patriotism and that non-believers have nothing to give to their country. The removal of these words would create a more inclusive America that accepts ... | |
If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists. The proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a m... | |
Tradition is not a reason for persisting wth anything! The proposition believes that the fact that references to God are made throughout official American state proceedings is not a reason to persist in including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but a reason for its removal to be all the more urgent. ... | |
Associates change and, by extension, anti-nationalism with atheism Any change to something as ingrained in American patriotism as the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with extreme resistance. As Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued “the Pledge has become, alongside the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner, ou... | |
Implies ultimate power on the part of the state The words “under God” reaffirm individual rights of American citizens as divine and coming from above the state. These words show that taking away these rights is not even within the conceivable grasp of the state. Removal of these words puts power back into the hands of... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.