Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[KrazyGlue]

The Texas group has the right to assemble and yell slurs. I don't think it should be considered assault unless they have weapons and/or are right up in the face of the muslim people threatening violence.

--------------------------------------------

By the way, I'm going to remove the structure from this thread and just let it be a general discussion for current events. It's too much work to manage all the topic ideas and create schedules for them.

 

[Aesir]

Which article? cause in mine it says they're just concerned about possible violence against them. There's nothing in that article that could be attributed too "they're saying bad things about us arrest them"

Krazy you don't need weapons to assault someone. If the fear of violence and assault is there, then there could be possible legal repercussions. Then again if that's the case we should probably arrest the tea party protesters since they out right threatened to kill people. Not one of them was arrested.

edit: all the Muslims are doing is asking for police protection. Also at the article sucomb posted; "Opponents of the Cordoba Center have often cited the negative public sentiments as a reason why American Muslims should voluntarily give up their right to freedom of religion."

And this is why the majority of the people is rightfully regulated.

 

[rvkevin]

So basically as people were going to mosque they had to endure hate-speech being hurled at them.

What is hate speech? Is this hate speech? When things like this, this, or this are cited as hateful, I'm sorry, but that term loses all meaning.

f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.-Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Still, hate speech is still protected under freedom of speech. You don't have the right not be to offended, you don't have the right to silence your critics, you don't have the right to take away other people's right to free speech. Further details here. It doesn't seem like there was any threat of violence. I would hardly qualify "Islam is a lie" as hate speech. I would put it in the class of pictures above. The protests fall under freedom of speech and therefore should be allowed.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Krazy you don't need weapons to assault someone. If the fear of violence and assault is there, then there could be possible legal repercussions. Then again if that's the case we should probably arrest the tea party protesters since they out right threatened to kill people. Not one of them was arrested.

Right, I know you don't need weapons, but what I'm saying is that if the mob was armed AND making death threats that would warrant an assault charge or at least some police protection.

 

[Sucumbio]

I would hardly qualify "Islam is a lie" as hate speech. I would put it in the class of pictures above. The protests fall under freedom of speech and therefore should be allowed.

There is a line drawn... but actually I wouldn't try to qualify someone else's definition of hurtful. This reminds me of people protesting the Nativity scene being displayed during Christmas time at Town Hall (a public place). Where I grew up, it's obligatory, namely because 80% of the town's population is Catholic, Protestant, or some other Christian religion. There's a handful of Jews, and others... but in that town, a town ruled by Selectmen's Committee (voted office) there's no way a "ban the Nativity" would pass.

Now true "Islam is a lie" is not hate speech, it's... an opinion. But from NBC's article on the event:

"This is a war in America and we are taking it to the mosques around the country..."

or perhaps less so:

"As much as we know that Islam is an enemy of Christianity and America..."

These aren't benign or philosophical uttering, these are powerful words meant to insight response, gather support... War... in America. Taking it to the mosques, I mean if I were a Muslim, and reading this, I'd be thinking 'uh, so what, do I have to go to mosque wearing a flak jacket now?' or 'Do I have to go undercover so I'm not attacked on the way?' Besides its not a stretch to imagine the paranoia that could be caused by groups like this one in Texas, and that itself may be considered a threat to public safety.

I understand they have the right to protest, that's not even up for question, it's absolutely their right. But I also fully understand the Muslim's wish for police protection, and I think they should get it. When Phelps demonstrates, the police are in force, normally, and usually to protect THEM from the crowds their preaching to.

 

[rvkevin]

I was covering this part of the issue.

"Could debate does the Texas group have the right to hatefully protest?"-Aesir

Its generally a given that the police are drawn into situations that involve crowds of people just in case. As for the provocative language, its merely politics. It is a culture "war". They are "enemies" to each other. That's what happens when two groups of conflicting ideologies blindly claim their truth and then try to spread their ideas, a clash is bound to happen.

 

[Dre89]

To spice things up, what about protests outside abortion clinics?

I think this is more difficult. While we all sympathise with the Muslims, it's not as easy to tell pro lifers to back off, because to them backing off is to let women get away with murder.

 

[rvkevin]

because to them backing off is to let women get away with murder.

There isn't a law against stupidity, they have a right to display it.

 

[Dre89]

I'm a bit confused, are you saying it's stupid to think that abortion is a woman killing an innocent human being?

This isn't an abortion debate, so I don't want to get into that. We're not supposed to argue whether abortion is right or not, just whether the protest are. So no one should be coming in 'saying well I think abortion is the mother's choice therefore they shouldn't be allowed to protest'.

What the abortion clinic scenario is supposed to do is make the question more difficult. The reason everyone was so unanimous on the Muslim issue is because none of us think there's any real problem with Muslim's worshipping, and we know every Muslim isn't a terroist. Abortion is a more controversial issue, hence the point of me bringing it up.

 

[rvkevin]

I am in favor of the protests regardless of the scenario. Just because we think they're wrong does not negate their right to free speech. The correct way to correct their misunderstanding is to counter-protest and defeat their points in the public sphere of ideas instead of silencing them and driving the ideas underground (In the unlikely case that they turn out to be correct, then all will be better off either way). I thought this would have been clear from what I said about them having a right to display their idiocy for all to see, as in, they have a right to free speech, they have a right to protest.

As for one example of what I consider stupid about their campaign; they consider abortion to be murder. Now, what is the punishment for murder? 25-life. What do they think the punishment for abortion should be? Most say nothing. Do you not see the inconsistency? Nevertheless, they have a right to display it.

Yes, I think it is not tenable to hold that a blastocyst is a human being, but that's besides the point. As for the arguments that accompany the movement, all can be dismantled via public discourse. I won't go into them here since the subject is the appropriate ways to air grievances and not the grievances themselves.

 

[Dre89]

So because a few pro lifers haven't thought it through pro life is stupid?

I could find five unknowledgeable atheists, then say all atheists are stupid because of that. It's no different.

 

[rvkevin]

So because a few pro lifers haven't thought it through pro life is stupid?

You must of missed it when I said:

As for the arguments that accompany the movement, all can be dismantled via public discourse. I won't go into them here since the subject is the appropriate ways to air grievances and not the grievances themselves.

 

[TheMike]

Top 100 best countries

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Top 100 best countries

Amurrica's not #1?

Not a surprise really, unless you're a tea party supporter or something...

Best part: When people read this and continue to sit there ignoring how to make America better.

 

[Aesir]

ya notice the upper tier of the list are secular social democracies?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I was thinking of bringing this topic up for a while. Some schools have decided to ban Tag and other contact sports. Source. What do we think about it?

I for one, think it's very silly. They banned it for safety Reasons:

The bans were passed in the name of safety, but some children's health advocates say limiting exercise and free play can inhibit a child's development.

Groups such as the National School Boards Association don't keep statistics on school games.

But several experts, including Donna Thompson of the National Program for Playground Safety, verify the trend. Dodge ball has been out at some schools for years, but banning games such as tag and soccer is a newer development.

"It's happening more," Thompson says. Educators worry about "kids running into one another" and getting hurt, she says.

It's not like their boxing or getting in fist fights. They're just playing sport and keeping fit in doing so. I think this sort of thing leads to a nanny state if you will. I mean what's the issue with kids playing kid games?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, that's really dumb. Hey kids, remember to never get exercise! You could get hurt!

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/10/progeria.children.aging/index.html

Not sure how to turn this into a debate, but I think it is an inserting new article.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@dragoon

Holy ****, my brother was telling me about that a MINUTE ago.

 

[KrazyGlue]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/10/progeria.children.aging/index.html

Not sure how to turn this into a debate, but I think it is an inserting new article.

Oh yeah, progeria is a really sad disease. There are all sorts of similar ones, but progeria is pretty much the fastest of them. But what exactly is there to debate about?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Oh yeah, progeria is a really sad disease. There are all sorts of similar ones, but progeria is pretty much the fastest of them. But what exactly is there to debate about?

I do not know I am not sure there is anything to debate about, but just in case there was and I missed how it could be turned into a debate I posted it here.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I do not know I am not sure there is anything to debate about, but just in case there was and I missed how it could be turned into a debate I posted it here.

I see. Well, it's better if you post it in the social thread in that case. One of the uses for the social thread is so you can bring up interesting articles for discussion and/or ask if anyone would be interested in debating it.

 

[Sucumbio]

This thread should be stickied, EE/GS

Think this has already been discussed before but some new developments in the story of kids not getting toys in their happy meals for much longer.

The lawsuit is a bold one, but McDonald's will surely fight to the bitter end. Either way this stands as a strong message that child obesity is real, and organizations are looking for any way to chip away at the problem. I personally think parents have the utmost responsibility, but there's no denying the fact that happy meals are unhealthy. Then again many of the kids I knew growing up excluding myself got the happy meal just for the toy, maybe took a bite or two of a cheeseburger or ate a nugget and some fries, and tossed the rest.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dunno if it should be stickied lol, it's kinda inactive. Could be used more though.

As far as those toys go, it's kinda borderline in my opinion. On one hand, it seems unfair to ban a simple form of advertising. On the other hand, they have done that before, i.e. with smoking ads.

I guess it's somewhat of a fair argument that McDonalds using toys is clearly a strategic plan to bribe kids into buying their food. They know that kids love the toys and many of them just get the food for the toys. However, why should the government be able to limit the marketing of companies just because their food doesn't meet a health standard? It's not like smoking, since food clearly has health benefits and no (or very little) physically addictive components. I mean, I eat at Wendy's every week or so, and I'm perfectly healthy.

It's a sticky situation, and I'm sort of on the fence and leaning a bit towards the side that toys shouldn't be banned.

 

[Sucumbio]

excellent point, KG. In fact this does tie in with the broader legislation that's sure to follow where fatty foods will be treated like drugs, because doctors are fairly sure that fatty foods, sugar, etc. are just as addictive as other things like alcohol and nicotine. It's more than just fat people eating to make themselves feel better. It's a psychological and physiological addiction in everyone, to gorge oneself on junk food. Ban junk food? Eh, probably not, I've mentioned several times how that'd never realistically happen. But this is just one small step towards limiting access to junk foods/fast foods in kids so they don't become obese/addicted.

(I think a sticky would keep it more active, though maybe not. My reasoning for this particular thread being stuck is so that articles like this can be discussed w/o creating a whole thread for it.)

 

[GoldShadow]

Sticky done!

 

[KrazyGlue]

Alright, cool. I redid the OP. What I envision is that people will come here to discuss current events, and the occasional little debate will occur. Similar to the social thread, but a lot more focused on current events rather than the other social thread functions.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also, according to this NY Times article, caffeinated alcoholic beverages are a new and quite possibly, threatening phenomenon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/27drink.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Four%20Loko&st=cse

What do we think?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The cans should come with a warning label explaining how the caffeine content can mask the effects of inebriation and that discretion should be considered during consumption. Individuals should realize that the beverage affects mental behavior/cognition and should subsequently take responsibility for their own actions regarding the purchased product.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm against alcohol in general; it's an unnecessary (in terms of recreational use) and dangerous substance. This sounds really bad. Alcohol is already one of the most dangerous drugs there is, and masking its effects will only lead to increased DUIs, domestic abuse, and other side effects of alcohol binging.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think these sorts of drinks are very nasty. They mask the effects of alcohol and therefore encourage people to drink more. Because of this, I think large warning labels should be placed all over the cans, rather like cigarettes packets in Australia. At the moment, however, to the untrained eye, it doesn't actually look like an alcoholic beverage. There, also probably should be restrictions on the amount of caffeine, so that the effects are not masked so easily. That's my opinion at the moment.

They have yet to get FDA approval though, so I'd be interested so see what comes of that.

 

[Sucumbio]

They've been serving Red Bull at bars for quite some time now. Same deal I suppose. I too think it's a bad idea. I would even say that it's physically risky to the body. Alcohol being a depressant and caffeine being a stimulant it seems that this could lead to an increase in heart problems, or at the very least cause to surface underlying problems that were already there due to the extra strain on the nervous system.

KG I didn't realize your sentiments on alcohol. Are you against it totally or do you approve of moderate use by responsible adults? I for one don't like being drunk, but will drink sometimes... mainly for social purposes or if it fits the setting, like with fine dining, etc.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Eh, I'm pretty much totally against it. I know people can drink alcohol responsibly, like my father, but a lot of people don't. It a very dangerous drug (far more than marijuana) and causes hundreds of thousands of DUIs, domestic abuse cases, bar-fights, etc. It's just an unnecessary burden on society.

That said, I'm not advocating prohibition. Alcohol is far too ingrained in our culture to be banned in the foreseeable future. However, if it was less popular, I would probably advocate for prohibition.

 

[Reaver197]

I personally think that making drugs illegal or prohibited substances, makes the issues of dealing with and controlling their use even harder, not to mention it then causes any money made from their distribution to not go into company or state coffers, but those of organize criminals.

If anything, legalizing drug use has proven to be far more effective at bringing down drug related deaths and use.

I find it extremely stupid, however, that cigarettes and alcohol get a free pass in society, but other far less harmful drugs don't.

 

[Pragmatic]

You know those RockStar drinks with 7% vodka? I threw up while being completely sober after drinking 2.

They're absolutely disgusting, I can only assume the same with Red Bull, which is equally a nasty tasting drink.

The harmful, physical complications should be fairly obvious.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, it's worse the Four Loko, actually contains 12% alcohol, unless you're opting for the 6% version. That's more than your average beer. And about as much as a wine.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The website provides the following information. In lieu of my previous post, they already state that they provide seven warning labels regarding the alcoholic content of the drink, even though they do not elucidate whether or not they mention caffeine being also stated on the label.

Four Loko:
• Four Loko is sold in 23.5-ounce cans with either 6 or 12 percent ABV, depending on state regulations.
• It was introduced to the market in August of 2008 and today comes in eight flavors: Orange, Fruit Punch, Lemonade, Cranberry Lemonade, Uva (grape), Watermelon, Blue Raspberry and Lemon Lime.
Caffeine and Alcohol Equivalents:
• Four Loko has roughly the same alcohol content as wine and some craft beers, and far less alcohol by volume than hard liquor.
• A can of Four Loko also has roughly the same amount of caffeine as a tall Starbucks coffee. The Safety of Combining Caffeine and Alcohol:
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is examining the safety of combining caffeine and alcohol and, as part of this investigation, is looking into about 40 different caffeinated alcoholic products, including our products.
• We’ve complied with the agency’s request and have submitted a GRAS study showing that combining caffeine and alcohol is safe – a practice that is by no means new or novel.
• The FDA does not currently regulate caffeinated alcoholic beverages; the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, (TTB), a division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) does.
Flavored Alcoholic Beverages:
• Flavored alcoholic beverages are nothing new; today bubble gum, raspberry and blueberry vodkas are all on the market – all with several times the alcohol content of Four Loko or Four Maxed.
• Other, widely-accepted beverages, such as Mike’s Hard Lemonade, Twisted Tea and Smirnoff Ice, have similar flavors.
Our Cans:
• Our cans feature seven different warnings about the alcohol content and the need for an ID for purchase.
• Our ABV warnings are in a font as large as the federal government will allow.
• We were the first caffeinated alcoholic beverage company to ad “WE ID” tags to our cans.
• Four Loko’s can colors are no brighter or more appealing than the blue, red, and green labels of established beer brands like Budweiser and Heineken.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The website provides the following information. In lieu of my previous post, they already state that they provide seven warning labels regarding the alcoholic content of the drink, even though they do not elucidate whether or not they mention caffeine being also stated on the label.

Oddly enough, if you glanced at one of these cans, you wouldn't actually know it contained alcohol. And the omitting of caffeine from the labels, is kind of a double whammy.

 

[Sucumbio]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

N. Korea tsk tsk breaking the armistice. Is this just showboating or do they really think they have the iron to go back to war w/S. Korea.

 

[Reaver197]

North Korea is led by people who are probably legitimately delusional, so I would imagine it not being very hard to convince themselves they could.

As to actually whether they are, though, I can't say.