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
asakawa
I prefer cats but the question is about "companionship" and that's not something cats do.
Post by
Rystrave
Where dogs are always deemed mans best friend, my cat Harvey is my kitty dog. He cuddles me, comes when I call him, is very playful, and sleeps every night near my head. I think it depends how the pet was raised. Dogs tend to get suffocating IMO.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm allergic to cats, but not dogs, so for me it's easy to pick what I'd actually get. I think that cats and dogs are just different kinds of companions. Dogs are always excited and happy to see you, and want attention and to play. They're good companions when you want to have fun. A good cat will wait until you sit down, and will come sit in your lap and purr. They're good relaxation companions, and good when you're sad. I've had both, and like them both. If I had to pick one, I'd go with dogs because I'm much more often happy than sad, but I had a roommate who had a cat who was a very big comfort when things weren't so great/
Post by
Adamsm
I prefer cats but the question is about "companionship" and that's not something cats do.
Well yeah, in a cat's case it's about ownership: They own you lol.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I prefer cats.
However, my cousin's cat came downstairs into their toy room to snuggle up to my sleeping bag. I couldn't get to sleep, so I turned over, mortally offending it and it scampered off.
Actually, that problem could have happened with a dog too.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
I read "Who make better
complaints
- cats or dogs?" and was very, very confused.
Post by
Orranis
Dogs. I'm allergic to cats.
Post by
Interest
I like dogs, mostly because I owned one. I don't mind cats though, but it's more enjoyable for me to have a companion by my side.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#10: Arizona Immigration Law
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions, on the grounds that they interfered with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy.
What was struck down:
A requirement that all immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.
A provision making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.
A provision that would allow police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
The ruling is likely to set the ground rules for the immigration debate, with supporters of the Arizona law pushing for “show me your papers” provisions in more states and opponents trying to overturn criminal sanctions for illegal immigrants.
When is it too far? When is it harrassment? By the sounds of the part of the law that was upheld, you could be asked for proof of citizenship based solely on your skin color.
What are your opinions on the law? Is it good or bad? Will it help or just make things worse? Was the Supreme Court right in only sticking with one portion of the law?
Post by
gamerunknown
Today the State of Arizona and Senate Bill 1070 was vindicated and the heart of the bill was upheld
the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration
I found that funny.
Post by
Magician22773
When is it too far? When is it harrassment? By the sounds of the part of the law that was upheld, you could be asked for proof of citizenship based solely on your skin color.
I see nothing wrong with asking for proper identification when you are stopped by police. I am required to do the same thing....provide my drivers license, or in the absence of that, enough information to prove who I am via their system. Why is it any different to ask someone for their ID? Legal immigrants are provided with their "green card". If you have it, then show it, and their is no problem.
Now, just as I have many times left my house without my wallet and not had my license, I am sure that legal immigrants will do teh same with their green cards. If I am stopped without my ID, I am going to be subject to more questioning to prove who I am. Legal immigrants that forget their ID should expect the same.
The only people that this law is "unfair" to, are the ones that are here illegally, and their "rights" are quite limited. There mere presence in the country makes them a criminal. And anyone who has ever been arrested will tell you that your "rights" once arrested are pretty narrow. You can be searched...in places you would prefer not to be searched. Your belongings are subject to be searched. Your car is subject to be searched. You can be restrained.
So, if you are here illegally, you deserve to be treated "unfairly", because you have broken the law. And I see nothing in SB1070 that is any more intrusive on illegals than an officer asking me for my ID and proof of insurance in a traffic stop.
Post by
MyTie
The problem i see, is that the sup court has decided that ariz cannot enforce laws that are federally written. As soon as that decision came out, the o administration said it would not enforce immigration laws in ariz. If ariz cannot enforce immigration, and the federal executive branch, which is sworn to uphold the law, refuses to uphold the law, then why eo we even refer to ariz as a sov state? Read scalia's dissent, which came even before obama decision to not enforce immigration law in ariz, which ariz citizens pay the federal gov to do. The whole situation is astounding to me. How could anyone vote for a prez that breaks his oath to uphold the law, simply because he wants to make a political statement?
Ariz needs immigration laws. Currently it has none in force. Its attempt at securing its border has been struck down, and obama has decided that federal law can be ignored.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#11: Simplify the English language?
English is widely regarded to be one of the most difficult languages to master. Despite its widespread use, both English-speakers and people learning English as a foreign language have complained about how hard it is to spell English words correctly. Although English is not alone in its linguistic nuances and occasional variations on accepted rules, the development of the language has had perhaps the most diverse and varied influences from other languages, most significantly French, Latin and German. This conglomeration of very different influences is not, however, the main point for debate in this case, although it is one of the main reasons for the complexity of English. Where people generally have the most issue with English is in the fact that spelling very often does not dictate correct pronunciation - For example, "cough" is pronounced "coff", "women" is pronounced "wimmen" and "nation" is pronounced "nayshun". Rules of spelling are taught in schools, but there are many exceptions – “tomb”, “bomb” and “comb” do not rhyme with each other. Some words which are said the same way have different spellings for different meanings, like “to”, “two” and “too”, or “their” and “there”. Not to mention Homonyms like bark (tree bark) and bark (a dogs bark) or in extreme cases of the same spelling you have:
bow – a long wooden stick with horse hair that is used to play certain string instruments such as the violin
bow – to bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow – the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow – the weapon which shoots arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow – a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)
bow – to bend outward at the sides (e.g. a "bow-legged" cowboy)
So evidently there are many cases in which English seems to be illogical and unnecessarily difficult.
Of course, there are generally clear explanations for all these difficulties, and taking into account the speed with which the language itself changes, this debate must focus on whether or not imposing a new set of phonetically-orientated rules would be preferable to the current system, or whether this would simply create a new set of problems.
Those for change say:
Simplifying the language could improve child literacy.
Making English easier would be especially beneficial to people learning English as a second language.
Changing the language could have social benefits - it would remove a layer of class superiority which is presently judged by literacy.
Changing would not be difficult.
Those against change say:
English isn’t too complicated - if it was it wouldn’t have survived, so there is no need for change.
The logistical implications of making such changes are impossibly impractical.
There would be significant cultural consequences to consider, the English language has evolved over a very long time, and to change it just to make it ‘easier’ would in fact complicate matters in many cases.
Post by
MyTie
There is no way to do this. Language isn't something that changes, unless through time, or military conquest.
There is no for nor against. You might as well tell everyone to be right handed because that would make things easier for golf club manufacturers, among others. The simple fact is, people learn language from their parents, who learned it from their parents, etc. You can't come into the middle of that and tell someone they can't use the word "they're" anymore, do to its conflict with "there". People use these words without even thinking about them. You would either have to kill the parents, and raise the kids with your new and improved language, or wait for the language to change itself, which will be an unpredictable change, ya' know?
Post by
Ksero
Well if you changed it to make it easier, then everyone who already knows how to speak it would have to relearn it, it's a lot harder to change something you already know than learn something completely new.
There is some language that was created for business that was based on English but was simplified and had a vastly smaller vocabulary. Ex. instead of "nephew" you would say "my brother's son".
Ill try and find the link for it.
Post by
Squishalot
How would phonetically orientated rules reduce confusion over your bow examples? And worse yet, would it introduce more confusion as existing words pronounced the same with different spellings (e.g. a tree bough)?
The bigger problem I would think is that the English language is one that's used in multiple jurisdictions with numerous different accents. As soon as you start spelling a word by phonetics, you're going to have different spelling in different countries (e.g. mom and mum), increasing cross-border communication difficulties.
Changing the language could have social benefits - it would remove a layer of class superiority which is presently judged by literacy.
On this point, it won't remove it, it will simply move the bar.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
This cannot be done.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.