The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If you don't support getting rid of old nukes, why do you support preventing new nukes from being made? I'm just curious.

Mostly the balance of power.

Look at who has nukes. We have: stable western european countries, the USA, the main western ally in the middle east (israel), two very stable eastern states (china and japan), and Russia, which is also fairly stable (this mattered in the cold war, mostly). Oh, and Pakistan and India, who both never should have been allowed to develop a nuclear program. EVER. Seriously, that's our next big threat to world peace. Maybe India, but dear god if Pakistan, and even moreso both at the same time having nukes doesn't scare me ****less. Oh and North Korea? See Pakistan

Now look at that. We have every major monetary power in the world. All of the most important nations. Israel is a little out of place, I suppose, and Pakistan and North Korea are WAY out of place, but it becomes very hard to take someone's nukes away from them with force due to MAD once they have them. When all of the powerful and wealthy countries have the nukes, who is going to wage a war against them? Nobody. It's a suicide mission. There can be no world wars without the armies of the USA, German, Russia, China, at least not on a large global scale.

However, the less stable the region where the nukes are in is, the more they go from "keeper of world peace" to "holy **** abu-shimsalabimsbams is gonna blow us all sky high".

Basically, if a region is fairly wealthy, very stable, and not explicitly genocidal, then fine, you can have nukes. However, the more nukes in circulation, the worse...

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well an even bigger threat is that due to the instability of these countries, the nuclear weapons could conceivably be dealt to terrorist groups.

 

[Dre89]

Kazoo how does the alternate account prove I'm a troll?

Did you even read why I made it? It was because I wasn't happy with the fact I'd revealed all my personal views, meaning that people form judgement and give less credit for my views. I just wanted to be a neutral debater, giving points for both sides of the debate, regardless of my personal position.

I was going to delete this account once the other one got admitted into the DH. How is that trolling? If I was a troll I wouldn't care what I had done.

And CK I'm not really that embarrassed, people just laugh when they hear how big a deal making an alternate account is. I'd only be embarassed if I had poor intention, such as operating both accounts at the same time, and making them agree with each other or something low like that.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Kazoo how does the alternate account prove I'm a troll?

Did you even read why I made it? It was because I wasn't happy with the fact I'd revealed all my personal views, meaning that people form judgement and give less credit for my views. I just wanted to be a neutral debater, giving points for both sides of the debate, regardless of my personal position.

I was going to delete this account once the other one got admitted into the DH. How is that trolling? If I was a troll I wouldn't care what I had done.

And CK I'm not really that embarrassed, people just laugh when they hear how big a deal making an alternate account is. I'd only be embarassed if I had poor intention, such as operating both accounts at the same time, and making them agree with each other or something low like that.

Already addressed this.

Read the thread before before you post. Just saying.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@dre

Go file your complaints somwhere else. Alt accounts are illegal, no matter the situation.

 

[Evil Eye]

I'd like to point to the public apology topic and encourage a cease and desist on this subject being discussed here in the DHST.

Let's talk some more about nukes! I gotta catch up before I can say anything relevant, though.

 

[Dre89]

DH I don't have any complaints, I just didn't know that was the rules. Had I known I wouldn't have done it.

EE is right, we should discontinue this quarelling.

Kazoo, as I said, we can settle your issue with me with a 1v1 debate. If people think I do well, you leave me alone.

What do you say? You're always saying I'm a troll, and that your methods of debating are superior, then let's match them, and see what everyone thinks.

 

[Lore]

Dre, do you want to try doing a 1 on 1 debate with me? I'm bored, and it sounds like a fun idea.

You can pick the topic, but I'll tell you if I don't know enough about it to argue about it.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@dre

You go do that.


Does anybody have any positive points about nuclear war?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah guys, the social thread is not the "complain about Dre thread". It's really getting quite annoying. It should really be relegated to PMs and Forum support. I'm not annoyed at anyone in particular, but it just needs to stop. In fact, I would appreciate it if the mods would ensure that these posts are in their proper places. Or at least people should stop responding when someone posts their thoughts regarding any specific member of the DH.

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

As for being on topic, I think the idea of Mecca being religiously segregated was an interesting point brought up in the Ground Zero Mosque thread. Is it acceptable that Mecca is religiously segregated? Discuss!

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

EDIT: (ninja'd)

Does anybody have any positive points about nuclear war?

No. It's bad. Really bad.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@KG

What about my topic? T_T

Edit: okay then

DA POINT TIME!!!11!!11

Nuclear warfare teaches people lessons. When the U.S. dropped nukes on japan, wasn't that how WWII ended?

 

[Lore]

As for being on topic, I think the idea of Mecca being religiously segregated was an interesting point brought up in the Ground Zero Mosque thread. Is it acceptable that Mecca is religiously segregated? Discuss!

Is the vatican religously segregated? I'm just curious.

Mecca is the religous center of Islam, which influences many governments (see "covered women" laws, etc), and if the local government decides to segregate the city, we obviously have no influence on their decision.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Does anybody have any positive points about nuclear war?

Uh... Population control.... maybe... And we already learnt those lessons....

As for being on topic, I think the idea of Mecca being religiously segregated was an interesting point brought up in the Ground Zero Mosque thread. Is it acceptable that Mecca is religiously segregated? Discuss!

No, I think it isn't.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has something to say on the matter:

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

And Article 2 says:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So basically, it's depriving people of their human rights. I think it's discriminatory and rubbish. I don't care what the Quaran says about this, it doesn't change the fact that it's an act of discrimination that violates our basic human rights.

 

[KrazyGlue]

DA POINT TIME!!!11!!11

Nuclear warfare teaches people lessons. When the U.S. dropped nukes on japan, wasn't that how WWII ended?

It also killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The only reason they didn't fight back is because we brutally murdered so many people they were intimidated into stopping. Sure, we could just nuke the middle east off the map, but we'd sever any ties (including imports/exports) with almost all the other countries, and most likely cause ourselves to get engaged in a long and painful war. Plus, it's just disgusting to kill thousands of innocent people for every terrorist that goes down. Besides, "nuclear war" generally refers to two countries nuking each other, not one just nuking the crap out of the other one.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Besides, "nuclear war" generally refers to two countries nuking each other, not one just nuking the crap out of the other one.

Sorry, my bad.

However, aren't wars without nuke basically the same thing?

Also, it still would tell people to stop.

(note: These arguments should be really easy to counter)

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sorry, my bad.

However, aren't wars without nuke basically the same thing?

No, nuclear weapons are extremely destructive and can destroy an entire city. Not to mention that the site is effected for years and years after the explosion by radiation, meaning innocent people in that area will be harmed even after the war is over.

Also, it still would tell people to stop.

(note: These arguments should be really easy to counter)

It would tell people to stop? What are you talking about?

If, by chance, you mean that by nuking a country that will send them the message not to **** around with you, that would be an utterly horrible strategy. Do you know how much money we owe China, and how much debt we are already in? (Hint: it's a lot.) Yeah, well as soon as we nuke Iran/Afghanistan/whatever, pretty much the rest of the world will sever any diplomatic ties with us, cut off any imports/exports, and demand that we pay their debt to them. Our economy would be fried. Moreover, we'd be on nearly hostile terms with the rest of the world.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

DH I don't have any complaints, I just didn't know that was the rules. Had I known I wouldn't have done it.

EE is right, we should discontinue this quarelling.

Kazoo, as I said, we can settle your issue with me with a 1v1 debate. If people think I do well, you leave me alone.

What do you say? You're always saying I'm a troll, and that your methods of debating are superior, then let's match them, and see what everyone thinks.

OMG, no in so many ways. I could say volumes, but I am going to respect this.

I'd like to point to the public apology topic and encourage a cease and desist on this subject being discussed here in the DHST.

I'll continue on with what I've been doing.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I love this world. This is the number of nuclear weapons the USA and Russia have in active deployment. Which means ready to launch.

Also this is the level of destruction we're experiencing if a small nuke goes off. This is the sort of damage were talking about a Nagasaki or Hiroshima sized bomb goes off.

And we've built much larger bombs. This is a comparative diagram of fireball sizes.

So in reality all out nuclear war is just utterly crazy.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I love this world. This is the number of nuclear weapons the USA and Russia have in active deployment. Which means ready to launch.

Wow. Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US? Weird. Nice find, Bob.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I love this world. This is the number of nuclear weapons the USA and Russia have in active deployment. Which means ready to launch.

No. That's a lie. But I still love you.

These numbers are total stockpiles, including warheads that are not actively deployed (that is, including those on reserve status or those that may be scheduled for dismantlement). The numbers of active/operational warheads could be much smaller in the present time, circa 5,700 for the United States and 5,800. Inadequate historical data prohibits long-term distiction between the two, hence lumping all numbers together.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

 

[Sucumbio]

Wow. Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US? Weird. Nice find, Bob.

Time had a great interactive "history of nuclear weapons" up a few years ago, but I can't find it now But yeah, Russia had like twice as many as we did during the cold war, yet we were still pretty much evenly matched. *shrug* ICBM's are cool.

Speaking of which, yes Dark Horse, actually there are quite a few "good" things that came of the discovery of Atomic Fission. Computers, Rockets, Nuclear Power, the discovery of the EMP, and even more. There's nothing good, however that could come of Nuclear War. And technically, the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki were isolated strikes, and not indicative of what nuclear war would be like. Nuclear War would consist of several nuclear explosions taking place, all of which considerably more powerful than the ones in 1945, and in the largest population centers (e.g. American Coastline) that would reduce each country involved to stone-age living. Depending on many countries were were involved (i.e. WWIII) you could be looking at Nuclear Winter, to name just one Global result.

The use of Nuclear Weapons is not actually illegal.

... the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. -International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

but that said, using one without the approval of the United Nations would result in calamity for the aggressor. That includes us. As we've learned all too well this decade past, we can barely fight one country, let alone all the nations of the world (at least members of the UN). Besides, it'd be highly uncharacteristic for us to drop a nuke on someone. This is why it's imperative Iran does not become a Nuclear power. Their security is insufficient, and if terrorists break in and get their hands on a nuke (or heck, if Iran just gives it to them) and somehow detonate it in the US, we have no way of "striking back" to ensure it can't happen again, at least not without nuking the whole middle east which is just not feasible.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No. That's a lie. But I still love you.



Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

Sorry, I originally posted the image that had the ones in active deployment and then changed it to the current one. I forgot to edit it... Basically, just to clear things up, the image we've got here basically is the current nuclear stockpiles. The USA actually has more in active deployment.

This is a little big, so I'll link to it instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.png

This is the level of nuclear weapons in active deployment. Not the other one.

 

[Evil Eye]

As for being on topic, I think the idea of Mecca being religiously segregated was an interesting point brought up in the Ground Zero Mosque thread. Is it acceptable that Mecca is religiously segregated? Discuss!

Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the closure of Mecca is pretty much a secular decision falsely labeled by the Saudi government as in keeping with proper Islam. As always, this is loopholed by a lack of specificity in the in the Qur'an, where people presume to insert details and specifics where there are none and call them supported by the text. Here's what the Qur'an actually has to say on the matter.

O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

In reality, this only seems to refer to the holiest land -- the Qaaba -- that has any measures of restriction to it. I'm not sure how big this is. It kind of defies explanation, but it's basically a cube-shaped shrine as the epicenter of an area about a city block in size.

And even beyond that, the Qur'an does not say to keep non-muslims out of the Qaaba, either! In fact, the Qur'an's preachings about tolerance of other religions that believe in God/Allah, notably the passages that imply that they will also be rewarded and are generally on the right path, would if anything suggest that Christians, Jews, and so on should be able to enter the Qaaba as well.

Hell, since the Saudis are so into inserting things, I could probably make a compelling argument for atheists and agnostics too, as we'd find the idea of being "idolaters" insulting. And so on and so forth.

The moral of this story is that the closing off of Mecca is in no way justified or demanded by Islam, and the practices being engaged even in regards to the actual sacred area (the Qaaba) are dubiously murky at best.

As for, do I think it's right? Well, no. I think I've shown quite adequately that the policy is in no way supported by Islam, therefore it's just a secular violation of human rights.

On that note:

I don't care what the Quaran says about this, it doesn't change the fact that it's an act of discrimination that violates our basic human rights

Yet again, here you are making a blatantly false assumption about Islam when you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't get you, man. It's like you sponge up every piece of dodgy anti-Islamic information you hear that vaguely resembles being realistic and commit it to the part of your brain that stores facts.

 

[KrazyGlue]

^ Couldn't agree with you more, EE. I've been trying to make the same point in the Ground Zero Mosque thread.

 

[GoldShadow]

Wow. Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US? Weird. Nice find, Bob.

Just to comment on this: the majority of these are probably floating around for use or sale (on the black market, potentially), unaccounted for by the Russian government like many Russian weapons.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yet again, here you are making a blatantly false assumption about Islam when you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't get you, man. It's like you sponge up every piece of dodgy anti-Islamic information you hear that vaguely resembles being realistic and commit it to the part of your brain that stores facts.

I believe that's mildly insulting. And how is it false? I said that I didn't care what the Qur'an said about it. And that's true. I don't care if everyone except those who are Muslims are interpreted to be idolaters. I don't care if "idolaters" aren't allowed to "approach" their Sacred Mosque, in their holy book. I don't care. When it deprives people of their basic human rights, in my opinion, it doesn't change the reality.

And I suppose you're right Evil Eye, it's not justified in their holy book. But that's what their using as their justification, and I'm just saying that I don't care if their justifying their violation of our basic human rights with some passages from a holy book. It's not an adequate justification, in my mind, even if it was specifically stated in their scripture.

I'm sorry if I'm offensive, but I just don't think that passages in scripture should be an adequate justification of the violation of some of our human rights. This is a stance I adopt against all religions. For the record.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't care what the Quaran says the Saudi Government has interpreted the Quaran as saying about this, it doesn't change the fact that it's an act of discrimination that violates our basic human rights.

I think I've shown quite adequately that the policy is in no way supported by Islam, therefore it's just a secular violation of human rights.

There, now you're both saying the same thing

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm sorry if I'm offensive, but I just don't think that passages in scripture should be an adequate justification of the violation of some of our human rights. This is a stance I adopt against all religions. For the record.

But that has nothing due to the religion. It's just a bunch of criminally insane terrorists pretending what they're doing is holy. If I cited the american constitution for right to bear arms as a reason to go around murdering people, should the constitution be banned because that was my reason for killing people?

 

[rvkevin]

If I cited the American constitution for right to bear arms as a reason to go around murdering people, should the constitution be banned because that was my reason for killing people?

If you cited that, you would be irrational because there is no logical connection between the second amendment and your actions. However, religions do contain prescriptions, and if you act on those prescriptions, it does follow logically from those prescriptions to those actions.

 

[KrazyGlue]

First of all, Bob said flat out that he doesn't care what the Qur'an actually says, he only cares that people use it as a reason to commit crimes. I was using that particular example to show Bob that you shouldn't just label something as "wrong" if someone uses it as a reason for violent actions.

Also what if a watched a movie that was deeply moving to me, but also glorified violence, and I used that as a reason to kill people? Should that movie be labeled as "evil" and made illegal?

 

[Lore]

Also what if a watched a movie that was deeply moving to me, but also glorified violence, and I used that as a reason to kill people? Should that movie be labeled as "evil" and made illegal?

Or better: if I play a violent videogame and then go out and kill someone, should that game be banned from stores?

The violent videogames debate is quite similar to this topic.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But that has nothing due to the religion. It's just a bunch of criminally insane terrorists pretending what they're doing is holy. If I cited the american constitution for right to bear arms as a reason to go around murdering people, should the constitution be banned because that was my reason for killing people?

Well, then fine. It doesn't have anything to do with religion. But religion is still being used a justification for institutionalised atrocities, supported by mainstream scholars of the faith. And for goodness sake I never said anything about banning the Qur'an! I'm saying that the beliefs should change, to omit all the nasty bits. That's all I want.

First of all, Bob said flat out that he doesn't care what the Qur'an actually says, he only cares that people use it as a reason to commit crimes. I was using that particular example to show Bob that you shouldn't just label something as "wrong" if someone uses it as a reason for violent actions.

No. That is an outright lie. I said "I don't care what the Quaran says about this, it doesn't change the fact that it's an act of discrimination that violates our basic human rights". Which basically means, I don't care how you justify it, or if you use the Qur'an (being the holy book in question, it could be any other holy book) to justify it, it still violates our human rights.

Also what if a watched a movie that was deeply moving to me, but also glorified violence, and I used that as a reason to kill people? Should that movie be labeled as "evil" and made illegal?

No, this is different, we're talking about a culture that tells people how to live their lives. Not a movie. When people are being told explicitly that killing people for sodomy or apostasy is the right thing to do, and the whole of their society agrees with it, there is an issue. I'm sorry, but I think that running a country with rules that are barbaric is wrong.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, then fine. It doesn't have anything to do with religion. But religion is still being used a justification for institutionalised atrocities, supported by mainstream scholars of the faith. And for goodness sake I never said anything about banning the Qur'an! I'm saying that the beliefs should change, to omit all the nasty bits. That's all I want.

What nasty bits? Something that some terrorist is teaching to kids in madrassas? Why do you blame that on the religion? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. People just use Islam as a facade to trick people into believing whatever the teacher says is righteous.

No. That is an outright lie. I said "I don't care what the Quaran says about this, it doesn't change the fact that it's an act of discrimination that violates our basic human rights". Which basically means, I don't care how you justify it, or if you use the Qur'an (being the holy book in question, it could be any other holy book) to justify it, it still violates our human rights.

But if it has nothing to do with the Qur'an then why in the hell are you blaming Islam? You're pretty much flat out saying "since terrorists pretend to be Muslim let's just blame the religion".

No, this is different, we're talking about a culture that tells people how to live their lives. Not a movie. When people are being told explicitly that killing people for sodomy or apostasy is the right thing to do, and the whole of their society agrees with it, there is an issue. I'm sorry, but I think that running a country with rules that are barbaric is wrong.

Still has nothing to do with the religion.

And note that I said the movie glorified violence (aka telling you explicitly to kill people) and it was deeply moving (so much so that a person would want to live their life as if it were in the movie, so essentially the movie is telling him how to live his life).

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What nasty bits? Something that some terrorist is teaching to kids in madrassas? Why do you blame that on the religion? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. People just use Islam as a facade to trick people into believing whatever the teacher says is righteous.

But if it has nothing to do with the Qur'an then why in the hell are you blaming Islam? You're pretty much flat out saying "since terrorists pretend to be Muslim let's just blame the religion".

Remember when I said under sharia law (which is actually enforced in a number of places such as Saudi Arabia) that the punishments for apostasy, adultery, sodomy and homosexuality is death? Sharia Law is Islamic Law. But it's in no way intrinsic to Islam, just as there are different groups of Christians, that believe different things, there are Muslims that think Sharia Law is inappropriate. All I want is more Muslims to think that way.

And I wasn't talking about terrorists either.

Still has nothing to do with the religion.

Well, it kinda does. Islam commands a strong influence in Islamic culture. And Sharia Law, which is what I'm arguing against is Islamic Law.

And note that I said the movie glorified violence (aka telling you explicitly to kill people) and it was deeply moving (so much so that a person would want to live their life as if it were in the movie, so essentially the movie is telling him how to live his life).

Well, maybe then the movie should be changed (if possible), to omit the areas of it which tell you explicitly to kill people.

 

[KrazyGlue]

But it's in no way intrinsic to Islam, just as there are different groups of Christians, that believe different things, there are Muslims that think Sharia Law is inappropriate. All I want is more Muslims to think that way.

Fair enough. I'll accept this.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Just read the DH social rules and I have one question.

If I find a neat and intelligent news article, wish to have a conversation about it, but can not figure out how to put it in debate format is it ok if I just post the article here, if not why?

 

[GoldShadow]

For posting interesting articles that might spark conversation, I'd just post them in this thread. If it gets off to a start/debate, you (or somebody) can make a topic for it. Alternatively, you could suggest it for the current events thread.

 

[KrazyGlue]

^ I'm not even doing a rigid format anymore, so Dragoon could simply just bring it up and we'd discuss it. I didn't like having the role of the guy who has to pick whose topics to use, especially since so many good topics would have to be rejected.

 

[BSP]

Hm, I've been wondering. Has anyone posted anything pertaining to smash in the DH? The Forums main focus is smash, so you'd expect some discussion about it. Is anyone even interested in talking about smash?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hm, I've been wondering. Has anyone posted anything pertaining to smash in the DH? The Forums main focus is smash, so you'd expect some discussion about it. Is anyone even interested in talking about smash?

There was an MK Ban thread in the Debate Archives from last year.