The Debate Hall Social Thread

[blazedaces]

THANK YOU REPUBLICANS FOR BEING ANTI-MICROCHIP IN THE ******L-RECTUM AREA!

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...s-the-legislature-and-an-implanted-microchip/

This reads like an article from the onion (the onion writes articles in a satirical manner, but its always fallacious).

I mean... really... seriously... this actually... happened?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I agree, if someone puts a microchip in my head, it better be more than just a **** misdemeanor.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

What blazed said.

This quote pretty much sums up the whole article:

"the bill has become a routine example of the Republican tendency to attack problems that don’t exist, and ignore the ones that do."

I also liked the part about microchips being the "666" mark.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What blazed said.

This quote pretty much sums up the whole article:

"the bill has become a routine example of the Republican tendency to attack problems that don’t exist, and ignore the ones that do."

I also liked the part about microchips being the "666" mark.

Yeah, good old neo-conservatives! Why in the world do they bother?

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's more a preventative measure then anything else, I see no problem with putting policy in place to deal with a problem before it becomes an issue, sounds like the responsible thing to do.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's more a preventative measure then anything else, I see no problem with putting policy in place to deal with a problem before it becomes an issue, sounds like the responsible thing to do.

Yeah, but it's merely window dressing, if they stand for privacy and so forth what about the patriot act? And if they're into preventing crises, shouldn't they be dealing with global warming? It's just really silly, there are much larger problems than microchipping people.

 

[CRASHiC]

I'm more concerned with the woman's mental health personally.

 

[CRASHiC]

So, are we just going to let this place die? We haven't brought in any new members besides Bob, we haven't gotten a new mod who'd be willing to promote new activity since CK is busy doing Admin stuff, and without new members, this place is going to fall a little stale, as we can see.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So, are we just going to let this place die? We haven't brought in any new members besides Bob, we haven't gotten a new mod who'd be willing to promote new activity since CK is busy doing Admin stuff, and without new members, this place is going to fall a little stale, as we can see.

Yeah, I say we bring in a few new members, and a number of us will have to create semi-controversial topics, that are worth arguing about. I might have to pretend to be a neo-conservative (never done that before).

Maybe, we should debate about whether internet censorship is a good idea. It's going to happen in Australia (where I live) and it's a controversial topic. I may have to do some research. OR we could debate this on principle, about censorship in general.

 

[Aesir]

I'm wondering what's going to happen with that Alabama immigration law, it's pretty obvious the state is going to have legal trouble because states can't make laws that are in federal jurisdiction.

 

[CRASHiC]

The smartest thing the republicans ever figured out is that if they make a popular unconstitutional law that they get to champion a successful victory and later play the victum of the big bad federal government, both popular things amongst their party.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I'm pleased to here that the Justice Department will look into the AZ immigration law.

There was a very good point made on last week's (4/24/2010, it's on there website) SNL that is worth taking a look for.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm pleased to here that the Justice Department will look into the AZ immigration law.

There was a very good point made on last week's (4/24/2010, it's on there website) SNL that is worth taking a look for.

I must say, I agree with you there, that immigration law is asking for racism.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I must say, I agree with you there, that immigration is asking for racism.

Or dry fascism. :3

Very interesting that this will probably happen more in the next decade, especially as the Western states start to become "majority minority" states. (Viz. states where white people are in the minority.)

Eventually in 2050, whites won't be the majority in the US (total population wise.)

 

[CRASHiC]

That's assuming things continue at the rate their going. If the United States doesn't continue to increase and stays about where it is now or continues to drop, we will see a drop in immigration and an increase ini emigration.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

That's assuming things continue at the rate their going. If the United States doesn't continue to increase and stays about where it is now or continues to drop, we will see a drop in immigration and an increase ini emigration.

Trufax, but I doubt there will be any drastic slow downs that could be similar to how immigration laws were @ the turn of the 20th century (rocking the AP US History, g@me =3.)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

In response to the pleas to increase activity in the Debate Hall, I propose we should try to provoke debate in the Proving Grounds using some kind of competition, (similar to CK's venture) to see if any potential debaters are good enough to be let in. Does this garner any support?

 

[Aesir]

If you're not active you're banned. Problem solved.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If you're not active you're banned. Problem solved.

Are you joking?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think he means from the debate hall... right?

 

[Reaver197]

I really do think that if the Debate Hall wants to have any level of activity, we're going to have to cut away the absurdly round about way people are allowed in to it. The whole system of having another board to "prove" that you are good enough to debate is asinine and ultimately will drive many people away from even trying out this board.

I think we should have an easier and shorter way for people to get in and post in the debate hall, like with the older system of just simply clicking the group membership to be let in and try it out. If it turns out that the person truly is not able to contribute constructively in anyway, then you simply revoke their ability to post. We shouldn't be giving people such a hard time getting in the first time.

 

[Aesir]

Are you joking?

Do I look like I'm joking?

I think he means from the debate hall... right?

MAAAAAAAAAAYBE

I really do think that if the Debate Hall wants to have any level of activity, we're going to have to cut away the absurdly round about way people are allowed in to it. The whole system of having another board to "prove" that you are good enough to debate is asinine and ultimately will drive many people away from even trying out this board.

I think we should have an easier and shorter way for people to get in and post in the debate hall, like with the older system of just simply clicking the group membership to be let in and try it out. If it turns out that the person truly is not able to contribute constructively in anyway, then you simply revoke their ability to post. We shouldn't be giving people such a hard time getting in the first time.

Co-signs.

 

[blazedaces]

I kind of like the old style CK had when he FIRST started out... which was in order to get in all you needed to do was write a short essay explaining why you should be let in. Basically as long as you could prove you could write a few sentences and use the spellcheck you were in...

But I think I'll also co-sign the aforementioned plan... anything to boost activity.

-blazed

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I'll co-sign the plan.

Aesir, being banned for not being active is counter-productive. If we want people to be active, making them unable to post won't do anything. Maybe a prod, but room-banning is taking it too far.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I really do think that if the Debate Hall wants to have any level of activity, we're going to have to cut away the absurdly round about way people are allowed in to it. The whole system of having another board to "prove" that you are good enough to debate is asinine and ultimately will drive many people away from even trying out this board.

I think we should have an easier and shorter way for people to get in and post in the debate hall, like with the older system of just simply clicking the group membership to be let in and try it out. If it turns out that the person truly is not able to contribute constructively in anyway, then you simply revoke their ability to post. We shouldn't be giving people such a hard time getting in the first time.

Yup, we need more members, and this plan is much better than my idea. It's got to be much easier to gain entry. I'll co-sign.

 

[Aesir]

Anyway I'm writing an argument for global warming for this thing at my school, I need to run this by the DH hopefully it'll work out.

Here's the bare bones of it.

Scientists have a very good track record when it comes to issues in the natural world, think about it for a moment who would you rather trust to heal a broken limb? a priest with no medical knowledge? or a doctor who is trained medically to handle the situation? I think you would have better luck with the doctor. No matter how you look at it, when it comes to the natural world science has a far more accurate track record of getting it right. But even given the vast amounts of evidence which tells us the earth is warming and it's due to us there is still almost no action taken.

Basically what it comes down to Is global warming true? or is it false. If it's false and we take action we'll have moderate damage to our economy, however if it's false and we take no action nothing changes and life goes on.

However if global warming is true and we take action, we would have lowered our carbon foot print and effectively avoided a potential disaster. But if it turns out global warming is true and we do nothing, well that's when things get messy. The damage to the economy as mentioned before would be the least of our worries. We're talking national security risks, disease, famine, wars over resources, mass migrations due to environmental risks.

It makes more sense to assume GW is true than to assume it doesn't, because by not taking any action we're risking a dooms day scenario, as opposed to economic stagnation.


Edit: yes my argument is basically pascals wager.

 

[Sucumbio]

it's like a loan or something sure I'm down. what do ye forum mods think of this plan?

^ yeah there's really no reason NOT to assume Global Warming is real. Even if we're wrong "going green" isn't nearly as harmful to the environment in the short-term -and- long-term as doing nothing, or worse, the opposite (how many new coal plants does China have this year alone?)

 

[Deleted member]

Anyway I'm writing an argument for global warming for this thing at my school, I need to run this by the DH hopefully it'll work out.

Here's the bare bones of it.

Scientists have a very good track record when it comes to issues in the natural world, think about it for a moment who would you rather trust to heal a broken limb? a priest with no medical knowledge? or a doctor who is trained medically to handle the situation? I think you would have better luck with the doctor. No matter how you look at it, when it comes to the natural world science has a far more accurate track record of getting it right. But even given the vast amounts of evidence which tells us the earth is warming and it's due to us there is still almost no action taken.

Basically what it comes down to Is global warming true? or is it false. If it's false and we take action we'll have moderate damage to our economy, however if it's false and we take no action nothing changes and life goes on.

However if global warming is true and we take action, we would have lowered our carbon foot print and effectively avoided a potential disaster. But if it turns out global warming is true and we do nothing, well that's when things get messy. The damage to the economy as mentioned before would be the least of our worries. We're talking national security risks, disease, famine, wars over resources, mass migrations due to environmental risks.

It makes more sense to assume GW is true than to assume it doesn't, because by not taking any action we're risking a dooms day scenario, as opposed to economic stagnation.


Edit: yes my argument is basically pascals wager.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

 

[Aesir]

Yeah more a less, in any case it didn't work out I got hopped up on coffee and was unable to actually say everything I wanted to say.

for example, it's better to move toward alternative forms of energy regardless if you believe in global warming because spending tax payer dollars on Saudi oil is creating national security risks for the rest of the globe.

Or how it's just good policy to move toward energy that isn't polluting the environment ect..

I'm never drinking coffee again.

regardless though he makes a good argument, it's better to assume global warming is true and a serious issues than not to. It isn't really a false choice either, furthermore it's a reasonable risk, considering all the data and organizations backing the issue.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Anyway I'm writing an argument for global warming for this thing at my school, I need to run this by the DH hopefully it'll work out.

Here's the bare bones of it.

Scientists have a very good track record when it comes to issues in the natural world, think about it for a moment who would you rather trust to heal a broken limb? a priest with no medical knowledge? or a doctor who is trained medically to handle the situation? I think you would have better luck with the doctor. No matter how you look at it, when it comes to the natural world science has a far more accurate track record of getting it right. But even given the vast amounts of evidence which tells us the earth is warming and it's due to us there is still almost no action taken.

Basically what it comes down to Is global warming true? or is it false. If it's false and we take action we'll have moderate damage to our economy, however if it's false and we take no action nothing changes and life goes on.

However if global warming is true and we take action, we would have lowered our carbon foot print and effectively avoided a potential disaster. But if it turns out global warming is true and we do nothing, well that's when things get messy. The damage to the economy as mentioned before would be the least of our worries. We're talking national security risks, disease, famine, wars over resources, mass migrations due to environmental risks.

It makes more sense to assume GW is true than to assume it doesn't, because by not taking any action we're risking a dooms day scenario, as opposed to economic stagnation.


Edit: yes my argument is basically pascals wager.

Yeah, another way to think of it is, like insurance. You don't know if the fire is going to burn down your house, but taking measures to make sure that you're protected from the fire if it does, is the smart thing to do.

Of course, with global warming, we actually know that the fire is going to burn down the house, and we've got to make sure we're protected from it.

Also, on the train the other day, I was talking to some of my mates about democracy. I've come to the conclusion that it is flawed, but it seems to be the best of a pretty dull bunch. Anyway, I think it'd be a reasonable topic for debate. "Democracy: A good system? or bad?" something along those lines. Comments?

 

[Sucumbio]

Also, on the train the other day, I was talking to some of my mates about democracy. I've come to the conclusion that it is flawed, but it seems to be the best of a pretty dull bunch. Anyway, I think it'd be a reasonable topic for debate. "Democracy: A good system? or bad?" something along those lines. Comments?

I suppose my question is in what way(s) do you think it's flawed?

In America for example, people often refer to the nation as a "democracy" but technically it is a republic, and normally mob-rule mentality reigns supreme. Authority is best defined as "the right to decide." In this context most Americans have the right to decide very little in their lives when compared to the numerous decisions that face people in general. We elect officials to represent our interests, but normally the selection is so limited that our representatives oftentimes do not fully represent us, mere parts of the whole, leading to the people being forced to pick the lesser of evils. In the last several Presidential Elections for instance one could argue that it was slim pickings, and that the winner was really just barely better than the other guy, not necessarily the best choice. This leads to debates on election reform, normally. Or at the very least an exploration of party politics to better include the numerous shades in the political spectrum.

Ideally and on paper (much like socialism) democracy is great, but in practice it's less so and in some cases far less so. In this country one must consider the presence of a strong free market and capitalist dogma. This has proven time and again to lead to corruption in democratic processes. That is not to say that political corruption isn't possible without money being involved, but the money often exacerbates the issue.

What our forefathers did right, is maintain a strict sense of Federal vs State. This allows the common man to explore his desires for the land in which he'll live. By being a Republic, we gain the strength of individual regions that govern themselves in the way their citizens feel best (again, ideally) and yet by having a Federal Government we are able to benefit as one from our separate parts. Electing officials to maintain these things is the difficulty in democracy. By election standards many people do not vote which counts against us as a people. And to reiterate the choices in elections are oftentimes so bad that it even encourages people to not turn out. I for one had NO interest in the election of 2004 John Kerry vs George Bush, Jr. It was like picking bad apples or bad oranges, you'd still get sick either way. And I got lulled into voting for Bush because we were at war and it's a 'bad' idea to change presidents mid-conflict (meh). If anything this is what our forefathers did wrong. By not anticipating our population and technology growth accurately our electoral system is antiquated.

So in summation, Democracy is good in the ideal, outdated in the real, and more of a buzzword now than anything.

 

[Aesir]

The best argument against democracy is 5 minutes with the average voter.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Honestly, I don't think the average person is actually stupid, but skills vary from person to person, and most people didn't choose political acumen as their specialty.

Pretty much everyone who's not low-end intelligence is competent in at least something.



Regardless, picture the average voter, now picture them as an absolute monarch... greatest argument for democracy, limits the damage.

 

[blazedaces]

Honestly, I don't think the average person is actually stupid

I highly disagree...

Just thought I'd throw that in...

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

picture them as an absolute monarch... greatest argument for democracy, limits the damage.

reminds me of Harrison Bergeron where the president was plumber. key difference being in that world everyone was forced to be mediocre ironically as a result of the democratic process.

but yeah that's very true, not everyone is cut out to lead, or to be politically minded.

 

[Aesir]

Honestly, I don't think the average person is actually stupid, but skills vary from person to person, and most people didn't choose political acumen as their specialty.

Pretty much everyone who's not low-end intelligence is competent in at least something.



Regardless, picture the average voter, now picture them as an absolute monarch... greatest argument for democracy, limits the damage.

Have you ever worked in government? at all?

I imagine once you did you would realize how much the average voter doesn't know/understand.

I've read so many constituent emails yelling at the legislator I work for, saying he better not vote for the catholic bill, because it's a slap in the face to all catholic's. (Btw he's catholic.)

Wanna what the catholic bill was? It was a bill that extended the statute of limitations on sexual offenses. No where in the bill did it mention the catholic church or any religion at all, it merely extended the statute of limitations. So what happened? all the bishops told their church members to write to their representatives, you know how many emails and phone calls we got basically calling this an anti-catholic bill when the bill made no mention of catholics?

Or hell currently CT has a budget hole of about 1.3 billion dollars, instead of cutting spending and raising taxes, we're using securitization schemes to barrow money and pay it back through revenue streams. Connecticut light and power wnated that money for them selves so they launched a campaign to get the bill killed. So many people emailed and called in, one email even said. "You guys should be ashamed of your self, raising our taxes!"

The stupid part is the bill actually was lowering the amount we paid on our electric bills.

Sorry I don't share most peoples idealism on the intellect of the average person.


edit: Democracy is also the worst form of government, except for all the others.

I'm just saying, the problem with democracy is people don't understand the issues, and when they don't understand them you get bad representatives which leads into bad laws.

 

[GoldShadow]

I've been pretty busy lately and haven't been able to post, but I wanted to pop my head in to say that 1) I agree with the idea above for increasing activity, and 2) vouch for the fact that voters, and people in general, are stupid.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Have you ever worked in government? at all?

I imagine once you did you would realize how much the average voter doesn't know/understand.

I've read so many constituent emails yelling at the legislator I work for, saying he better not vote for the catholic bill, because it's a slap in the face to all catholic's. (Btw he's catholic.)

Wanna what the catholic bill was? It was a bill that extended the statute of limitations on sexual offenses. No where in the bill did it mention the catholic church or any religion at all, it merely extended the statute of limitations. So what happened? all the bishops told their church members to write to their representatives, you know how many emails and phone calls we got basically calling this an anti-catholic bill when the bill made no mention of catholics?

Or hell currently CT has a budget hole of about 1.3 billion dollars, instead of cutting spending and raising taxes, we're using securitization schemes to barrow money and pay it back through revenue streams. Connecticut light and power wnated that money for them selves so they launched a campaign to get the bill killed. So many people emailed and called in, one email even said. "You guys should be ashamed of your self, raising our taxes!"

The stupid part is the bill actually was lowering the amount we paid on our electric bills.

Sorry I don't share most peoples idealism on the intellect of the average person.


edit: Democracy is also the worst form of government, except for all the others.

I'm just saying, the problem with democracy is people don't understand the issues, and when they don't understand them you get bad representatives which leads into bad laws.

I think you're missing my point.



I don't disagree, most people are horrifically misinformed about government.



That said, not having that specific thing as their area of expertise is not the same as them being stupid, it just means it's not their area of expertise.

 

[Sucumbio]

its hard for me to fault voters for their ignorance. your average joe won't be subscribing to the NY Times, if that's even considered a valuable publication anymore (it was required reading in my poli sci class, but that was 15 years ago, lol.) what they will be doing is watching the local news or maybe the nightly national news. by doing this they'll be subjected to a typical bias, blue if its NBC red if its Fox, etc. And as such they'll absorb the "issues" as they are presented, however accurately or inaccurately that may be.

in essence an average voter's intelligence -in regards to political issues- IS fairly limited, if nothing more than a regurgitation of buzzwords and sound bytes. much like kids at the dinner table who later resound their parent's poli-talk at school, having no real ideas of their own. and this limitation is then translated into the voting booth, where a match game is made, trying to fit the square peg into the round hole.

your angry voters' emails are a common display of this transference. people are easily swayed by those in authority, ergo priests and politicians. true the bill may not mention the word Catholic, but its not far fetched to be seen as anti-catholic when painted as such. those same voters could be swayed in favor of the bill if they attended a town hall meeting displaying the importance in not letting rapists off the hook simply because too much time had elapsed. it's just too outrageous for people to stomach that their priesthood may be responsible for actively trying to cover up these things.

the solution here is not to dismiss people as idiots, but rather hold politicians and other authority figures responsible for their portrayals. by keeping the public purposefully mislead you are bound to get unfair responses. democracy as such can only really work if whats being discussed isn't skewed in the name of votes. but this won't happen in reality, because there's too much to lose. politicians really do have axes to grind, and if their voters and supporters really knew what they were up to, they'd not get elected. and if the voters got dumbed down (but still accurate) versions of bills, (like getting a cliff's notes for the health care reform package) would they still get behind them? perhaps not.

 

[Aesir]

adumbrodeus:

I'm using the word stupid quite loosely, I don't mean they're dumb by nature. I just think when it comes to the issues they don't know what they're talking about. IMO that's a huge fault for democracy, I mean I'm not saying I want a large central government with leaders who are not elected. *basically an oligarchy*

What I'm saying is, people in general don't understand the issues, I've spent so much time with people to know that they really don't know what they're talking about. The fact that in my state Linda McMahon who doesn't understand anything is winning the Republican primary in CT, and someone like Rob Simmons who's a very qualified person is losing.

It's just embarrassing and frustrating.