I'm sick and tired of Libertarians

[Pluvia's other account]

What Alt and Jam are saying, even though harsh, does have a point to it.

You can hate school. I hate school, I absolutely despise that place, but I don't hate education, there's a difference.

If you find it harder to achieve grades than the brainy people, then don't worry, you can always try again after school. Don't try to match the smart people, just try your best at what you can get.

And don't judge people by how much they know. Yeah maybe it's practical, but if we're living in a world like that then what a dark world its become.

And I'm not sure if that made much sense. It's late.

 

[AltF4]

I agreed with everything you said up to this point. I think its more of what you know than how much you. For instance lets say you major in Business, Theology, Architecture, Computer Science, even gourmet cooking, and i only major in Medicine. You would have a more broader, bigger knowledge base than i do, that doesn't make you any more valuable than me, who has a smaller knowledge base, but is a capable surgeon who can save lives and knows **** about making a souffe(sp?)

Or would you say that Stephen Hawkins is "worth more" than say a firefighter. Im sure hawkins would know more, but he can't do **** to help society besides relay his knowledge. Im pretty sure the firefighter would be of more worth to society.

I think you know what I mean. Clearly it's not sheer quantity that matters. Ken Jennings has an awful lot of things in his brain, but none of it is useful.

But in terms of "worth to society", yes, Steven Hawking has contributed more than any random fireman. (Not to demean their job... but do you know how much Hawking has done?)

 

[SuperBowser]

And Super, you're sort of right, being a psychologist, you need to be logical, so having a little bit of knowledge everywhere helps, at least this is if I am reading you right.

I'm half way through my medicine degree and my favourite subject is the brain. Trust me, you need to know the science if you want to do psychology

edit: I just checked and you're only 15 (I assumed you were older...). As Alt said, why close off all your options now and just learn psychology? Maybe you'll change your mind. The purpose of school at that age is to give you the grounding to take any career path you may want. No one should be made to decide what they want to be at 15.

 

[Sporkman]

God I'm glad I decided to not sign up to be a debater, if there's this much drama in there than forget it...

By the way there was no need to swear/insult, just because I have a different point of view doesn't mean you need to be an ***clown about it.

In defence of the Debate Hall, I'm not in it. I'm just a massive ****.

 

[Darkslash]

Freedom is overrated. Knowing things is scary. I'd rather just do what people tell me to do. I'd make a good soldier.
.

Yea then go to your nearest recruitment department and be done with it already..

 

[Bassoonist]

I have always felt inferior to the rest myself.

Hard work does not always pay off. That's a fact. Sadly.

 

[1048576]

Yea then go to your nearest recruitment department and be done with it already..

I've considered it, but I'm really not fit. I weigh 300 lbs and it takes me 8:30 to run a mile.

 

[Peeze]

Thats actually not that bad dude.

The mile time i mean, not the 300 pounds.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Peanut Butter and Jam I like the way you talk. Simple, courteous, and logical.

Freedom is overrated. Knowing things is scary. I'd rather just do what people tell me to do. I'd make a good soldier.

This is somewhat of a separate issue that ties into the disscussion, but it's something I love to argue.

The term "Ignorance is bliss" conveys the idea that the less you know, the better off you are, or at least the happier you are. This is generally not the case.

I believe that one has an obligation to be knowledgeable. It prevents you and the people around you from being deceived. Often someone might wish ignorance because the truth may be that their previous perception of the world was immoral in some way, or there was something wrong with it (Cypher in The Matrix, perfect example I love that movie). But to wish you did not know the faults in your previous immoral or flawed perception is immoral and flawed in itself. Knowing things can be scary, and it can open you to grief you may not have otherwise encountered. But, in the end, I believe that ignorance will eventually land you in discontent, because I personally believe that someone who lives immorally cannot be truly happy (I've seen both sides).

So. I would change "Ignorance is bliss" to "Ignorance is immoral". And if you cannot be happy in your immorality, then "Ignorance is hell". And so we are obligated by ourselves and others to pursue knowledge, lest your previous thoughts be flawed and lead you into a poor life. Look what happened to poor Cypher?

Those are my thoughts spewed out. I wish I had time to organize them better.

 

[1048576]

People do immoral things because it makes them happy.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

People do immoral things because it makes them happy.

At what expense?

 

[1048576]

You say ignorance is bad. I say it's bliss. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Darkslash]

Those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it.

So i say Ignorance is immoral because with that ignorance your going to do some thing REALLY horrible.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Ignorance is blissful in the self-delusional kind of way. It's like the saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you", and we all know how false that is.

 

[SuperBowser]

Ignorance is blissful in the self-delusional kind of way. It's like the saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you", and we all know how false that is.

...but it's not always false.

 

[Jam Stunna]

...but it's not always false.

Give me an example.

 

[SuperBowser]

Placebo effect.

Edit: i think this post would be better with just these two words.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Cancer patients. When they have a poor prognosis they are rarely told statistics, unless they really really want them.

It's called the placebo effect.

First, what you have described is not the placebo effect. Any responsible doctor will tell their patient that they may be facing an uphill battle, but they may choose to withhold things like statistics, because there may not be any urtility in saying "You only have an x% chance of survival."

Second, the true placebo effect isn't a case of "What you don't know won't hurt you"; it's a case of mind over matter or whatever term you want to use to describe it.

Thirdly, a placebo definitely can hurt you, since you're not receiving any real treatment. If you don't know that the cancer pill that supposed to be curing you is really just a sugar pill, that can kill you.

 

[SuperBowser]

First, what you have described is not the placebo effect. Any responsible doctor will tell their patient that they may be facing an uphill battle, but they may choose to withhold things like statistics, because there may not be any urtility in saying "You only have an x% chance of survival."

Yes, but when a patient asks the first time ''what are my chances?'' and the answer is 2% the doctor will never give the true number. Why? Because in most cases, this knowledge is harmful to the patient.

Second, the true placebo effect isn't a case of "What you don't know won't hurt you"; it's a case of mind over matter or whatever term you want to use to describe it.

What's the difference between the two in this case?! The patient hasn't been told the truth. But they still have a better chance of recovery. You can't pretend that the truth has failed to be passed on. ''Mind over matter'' may be the mechanism but in this case it is because the truth was not given.

Thirdly, a placebo definitely can hurt you, since you're not receiving any real treatment. If you don't know that the cancer pill that supposed to be curing you is really just a sugar pill, that can kill you.

Well obviously I'm not suggesting giving placebos to someone with a disease that won't be cured by a placebo . This didn't need saying.

 

[1048576]

What I don't know can't hurt me is an entirely true statement because if it's hurting me, then I know about it. Contrapositive = conditional.

I've never been hurt before and not known it. It's impossible to feel hurt without being conscious of the hurt.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Or maybe you are being hurt, but you just don't know it.

 

[Eor]

What I don't know can't hurt me is an entirely true statement because if it's hurting me, then I know about it. Contrapositive = conditional.

I've never been hurt before and not known it. It's impossible to feel hurt without being conscious of the hurt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis

If we go with more normal example, let's say voting. Candidate A will do X to the economy, while candidate B will do Y to the economy. You don't understand the issue they're debating so you don't vote. Or, you don't even realize there's an election. Candidate A wins, and does X to the economy, which causes you to lose your job. That doesn't make you aware at all about issue X, it just makes you aware you lost your job. And if you had known about issues beforehand, you could of attempted to change it.

Another example, you don't realize someone is out to kill you. Therefore, you get stabbed to death. Does that hurt you? Yes. Are you aware of it? At the very end. Does your ignorance save you? Not at all.

 

[1048576]

If you had never known that you would be killed, you would never have been killed.

If you never knew that you would lose your job, you'd still have your job.

What you don't know can't hurt you. Once it hurts you, you know about it. You may not know about the events leading up to it, but you know that something is causing you hurt.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

But you don't know about it until after it hurts you. So you don't know about it, you get hurt, then you know about it. It's like say I get shot in the head by a sniper, I never knew about it, yet it still killed me.

So saying "What you don't know can't hurt you" doesn't work.

You may know something is causing you hurt, but you don't know what it is.

 

[Thrillhouse-vh.]

i have a class that i am taking right now. it talks about how people learn. and frankly if you are not learning jack the way you are studying, try something else. do something active why you learn. shoot a water at targets and recite what you need to know.

That'd be conforming.

There's another thread that's relevant to this, I'm still looking for it to post.

 

[Eor]

If you had never known that you would be killed, you would never have been killed.

If you never knew that you would lose your job, you'd still have your job.

What you don't know can't hurt you. Once it hurts you, you know about it. You may not know about the events leading up to it, but you know that something is causing you hurt.

Not knowing about the crisis hurts you because it causes you to not act and therefore lose your job, not knowing about the man trying to kill you hurts you because it causes you to die. Not knowing about the events is what causes the later "hurt". Unless of course you have the disease I linked to, where you can't feel anything.

 

[Sporkman]

Isn't "Ignorance is bliss" supposed to pertain to emotional/moral dilemmas? I know it can apply to other stuff, such as forgetting about impending exam results so you can enjoy your holiday etc...

 

[OmegaXXII]

Unless of course you have the disease I linked to, where you can feel anything.

agreed, but feeling "anything" must be unpleasant for you, am I right..?

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Knowledge is vision. Without it you trip and fall.

And IF ignorance were to be rewarded with bliss, the world would grind to a halt because nobody would care about knowledge anymore. It's similar why communism doesn't work. If laziness is rewarded in the same way as hard work, why wouldn't you be lazy?

Therefore knowledge MUST be rewarding or else we wouldn't seek it out would we? I certainly do.

 

[1048576]

But you don't know about it until after it hurts you. So you don't know about it, you get hurt, then you know about it. It's like say I get shot in the head by a sniper, I never knew about it, yet it still killed me.

So saying "What you don't know can't hurt you" doesn't work.

You may know something is causing you hurt, but you don't know what it is.

You know about it when it is hurting you, and after it has hurt you, but not necessarily before.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Logically, he's right. What you don't know won't hurt you, because the second it does, you know about it.

But in effect, not knowing sets you up to get hurt.

 

[Eor]

Except that he's arguing that it's impossible to get hurt without knowing it, not that not knowing things won't hurt you.

 

[GreenKirby]

The only problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that they automatically shoot for the President's chair. **** their egos.

You start at the bottom, winning local cities, then state governments, and then work your way up. Not automatically aim for the top.

Unlike, aging, businesses, technology, and construction, the Libertarian Party is backwards because of that.

 

[Livvers]

This thread just...wow. Just wow.

Wow.

 

[manhunter098]

The only problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that they automatically shoot for the President's chair. **** their egos.

You start at the bottom, winning local cities, then state governments, and then work your way up. Not automatically aim for the top.

Unlike, aging, businesses, technology, and construction, the Libertarian Party is backwards because of that.

You shouldnt need to do that, the candidate that best represents the will of the nation is the one who is supposed to be chosen. Right now in our failure of a party system the knowledge of other parties is suppressed by the two main parties, who make restrictions that are difficult for other smaller parties to fulfill. In doing this they frequently can never win much and thus get the necessary attention of the media.

 

[OF 'til I OD]

The only problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that they automatically shoot for the President's chair. **** their egos.

You start at the bottom, winning local cities, then state governments, and then work your way up. Not automatically aim for the top.

Unlike, aging, businesses, technology, and construction, the Libertarian Party is backwards because of that.

This entire post is riddled with fallacies. Unless you are a part of the constituency any Politician is seeking, it's unlikely you'll know about them, their campaign, their issues, etc. Libertarians have held positions on nearly all levels of Government. Ranging from County Chairs, County Executives, State Chairs, even Congressional seats. If they've held these positions, they've obviously run for them. There have been numerous gubernatorial Libertarians as well. They've yet to really run for Senate at all, only having one candidate ever run (Richard Randall in 2004, CO).

The only reason it seems they only run for the Presidency is because that's the most known and possibly prolific political position in t he United States. The LP has had candidates running and serving in the near spectrum of positions.

 

[Cyphus]

just as a heads up about psychology, cuz i saw it was an example of interest...
i'm a psych major at nicholls state university and taking my last class as as junior.

everything u think psychology IS is wrong. HighSchool psychology is so..elementary, you possibly can't have any idea. You think Psych is about using your intuitive skills to understand people and figure out a solution to their problems....that couldn't be further from the truth. There is zero 'intuition' is psych. If thats what you think, you need to be a counselor (completely different school of thought; Humanistic).
Psychology, contrary to some belief, is a science. Its a methodical, practical knowledge base that adds to self. You study behavior to understand the mind. If you can change behavior, the mind will follow (you donnot attempt to change the mind so much- it can not be empirically looked at. Your practice will grow as you continue to educate yourself through scientific journals. You donnot rely on your experience to label someone to this condition....there are specific critera, you must objectively consider, ethical restraints, proffesional liabilities, and all the help you give people comes at the costs that they always have disadvantages to every "cure."
psychology is hard. What sigmund freud did was NOT psychology, and all the pop culture ideas of people using these cliche folk remedies to 'understand' people's problems "edipus complex, infantilism, psychosexual desires, dreams, etc"....bull****.
"Well, doctor....i keep having these dreams. I dont understand...One where i was in a tipi...and another where i was in a pow wow."
"Thats easy. You simply have an interest in native american culture"
i dont even know how one would realistically correct someone's misunderstandings about psychology....i give up already here. XD

 

[Kinzer]

^^ I'm going to respond to you later, but I want to tell you now try and use smaller words, though I like to think myself as intellectual, I KNOW I'm not that preped up.

 

[OF 'til I OD]

^^ I'm going to respond to you later, but I want to tell you now try and use smaller words, though I like to think myself as intellectual, I KNOW I'm not that preped up.

Why should he detract and diminish an expansive vernacular because a few select individuals are unable to understand? Willingly "dumbing" yourself down is likely the most erroneous thing an individual could ever employ. :embarrass

 

[Crimson King]

I bet you used a thesaurus for that post because 90% of the words you used in there are words you never used.