Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rumpelstilzchen
Food is what would be given to the hungry. Food would be the start to curing the hunger of the poor.
I have more to add to the conversation, but I don't want one perspective as a reply. I'll post more when more people post. Is that ok with you?
And do you even know what my argument is? I've just been pointing at the holes in your argument so that you can get a better stance on your ideals and rethink what you believe. I can spot something hazy in an argument, or something that doesn't quite fit... and I'll point it out for you, so that you can make it better and have people agree with you more.
In this debate, you've been supplying your ideas 100% of the time. I've been countering them, and you've been defending them. I'm supplying none of my beliefs or ideals, so how am I going to convince anyone what I believe, if they do not know it? I'm not trying to win anything, I'm trying to show you that, while your beliefs are pure-hearted, they can conflict with other forms of rational thought.
Don't hate me 'cuz I'm new  |
Heh. I'm not hating you at all, I was just confused as to what some of your points meant, and I think I may have started the confusion.
I once said something like "children starving a mile away", I wasnt implying that the rich should get food for them, I was meaning that geneticists might be using gentic engineering technology for the rich people to use (ie improving their strenght, intelligence, speed etc) while they COULD be using it to maybe alter a gene that slows metabolism down. Imagine the possibilities. Curing world hunger WITHOUT food. That's what i was implying. Instead of needing more food to give them, you instead make them need less food.
Of course, it would be the persons choice whether they wanted this done to them, because I feel that altering someone's genes without their consent is an act as horrendous as rape or something.
I do realize my argument is not bullet proof, but if you read the last bit of my essay, I do take into consideration other points of view. I think I even plus repped you for providing me with a nice argument, but it may be wise for you to read my ENTIRE argument before pointing out the holes in it.