CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1. Politics can never solve social problems at a root level, because politics is just another element in the soil in which social problems take root. In fact, it provides one of the most essential nutrients so that the tree of stupidity and tyranny can grow.
2. We live in an objective physical universe, subjective modes of thought and social constructs can't solve real world problems, they only create them.
3. Man's propensity to adopt a superstitious mindset is what allows social constructs to become the very fabric of our society. Social constructs such as the monetary system are mass mind viruses rather than anything tangible and everyone is programmed with the superstitious belief in it's value. It is the human ability to easily accept a belief system based in pure concept rather than reality which leads to all tyranny.
4. The three things that make peace and freedom impossible are scarcity, superstition and low IQ bongo genetics (jest).
5. No one should have authority, we should basically consider logic and truth in and of themselves to be the sole authority.
6. Instead of having man made laws and punishing people for their crimes, we need to educate all people starting from a very young age why it's objectively logical and mutually more beneficial and productive to co-exist and co-operate with other humans rather than engaging in socially destructive behaviour. Instead of punishing people, we need to recognise that humans don't have free will, are not to blame for their actions, and there are causal factors to behaviour which can be CORRECTED. When you reduce poverty, child abuse, bad genes, neurosis etc. you reduce crime. In the future, the phrase "corrective facility" will actually mean something if we make any real social progress.
6. Instead of having man made laws and punishing people for their crimes, we need to educate all people starting from a very young age why it's objectively logical and mutually more beneficial and productive to co-exist and co-operate with other humans rather than engaging in socially destructive behaviour.
I particularly like this point. It seems to me this is logically inextricably bound to IQ/intelligence also. Do you think this as well, or hold a differing perspective?
It seems to me this is logically inextricably bound to IQ/intelligence also.
Yes it is, it requires a population with an average intelligence which is above current average human intelligence. However, if you where to take an average human out of the shit hole of society and make perfect nutrition available to them all their life and condition them to a much more scientific environment where the snow globe does not exist, they would not only end up with a higher IQ, they would use that IQ in much more productive ways. Education and nutrition should become the new eugenics movement. If critical thinking became commonplace instead of the mere regurgitation of opinions and information and if the public stopped ingesting brominated high fructose fluoride smoothies the world would be a much better place.
I agree that human potential is vast--however, the largest impediment to this playing out is the need to have a higher base standard in order to begin the 'feed-back-loop' process. That is, a threshold point has to be met, call it 'x', before we are able to get most people ambitious, intelligent, and of robust moral fiber that they would be interested in further exploring the limits of human potential (as some already are--e.g. Buddhist monks & empathy, Scientists/Philosophers & intelligence, people who excel at a craft of choice & ambition, ect.). If and when 'x' is reached, there is no telling how superior people are capable of becoming; my guess is that it would be truly mind-boggling & awe-inspiring relative to modern standards. Unfortunately, we are nowhere remotely in the vicinity of 'x' at the moment
If only the answer to achieving an idyllic society was as simplistic as your fanciful and naive assertions suggest we would all be living in Utopia.
The ten commandments were set out a couple of thousand years ago and we're all still knocking seven bells out of each other and the strong still exploit the weak.
Are you really trying to say that the violent and criminal nature of mankind can be stopped by tutoring?
Are you really trying to say that the violent and criminal nature of mankind can be stopped by tutoring?
Hello imbecile, as always you are incapable of recognizing what truly makes humans the way they are. I am not talking about taking extra classes or hiring a tutor when I say education, I'm talking about rethinking the entire education system and the way that children are brought up and replacing the propaganda and mindless nonsense in media with more enlightening material.
The "criminal nature of mankind" is a retarded statement, man can be both the most vicious and the most peaceful and compassionate animal depending on which human you are looking at. People can also experience massive shifts in their personality which can usually be linked directly and obviously with their experiences and environment. Some people say it's human nature to be compassionate, then why did Hitler exist? You say that humans are naturally violent, then why did Sidhartha Gautama exist? Because human nature doesn't exist and humans can be either extreme or anything in between.
If humans are exposed to the right conditioning, they can become much more intelligent and civilized than they currently are on average.
I'm afraid your head is full of mad dog's shit and your kindergarten drivel is hovering somewhere between being embarrassingly guileless and eye-wateringly ridiculously stupid.
Were you abused as a child?
Did you contract one of the more severe, brain damaging social diseases?
Antrim, you have been conditioned to an uncivilized society just like I was. I understand better than anyone why so many people think the way you do. Trying to explain this to you is like trying to convince a prehistoric sand nigger that man will some day walk on the moon and that his great great great great great grand daughter will dress like a ninja and get molested by 50 men by the time she's ten.
Humans (assuming they don't go extinct or devolve) will not always be as primitive as they are now. You are a primitive bongo compared to me who cannot comprehend what it means to be civilized. I bet you haven't even heard of the kardashev scale you primitive ape.
While I see where you are coming from, and I like where you seem to want to get to, I think you tend to disregard a lot of what real-life people actually are. Most of your ideology is base on the ideal that people should somehow (magically?) behave differently.
In light of your first point (1. Politics can never solve social problems at a root level, because politics is just another element in the soil in which social problems take root) how do you propose to propose accomplishing numbers 2-6?
I think you tend to disregard a lot of what real-life people actually are. Most of your ideology is base on the ideal that people should somehow (magically?) behave differently.
This is precisely the opposite of the truth. Our current society disregards what makes humans the way they are. I know the scope and variability of what they call "human nature" which does not exist. Our current society is the one that assumes "people should somehow (magically?) behave differently." without applying any scientific understanding of human behaviour to alter the conditions which produce insanity or destructive behaviour (i.e criminality). My "ideology" is that we have to scientifically understand what makes people the way they are and abate the factors which make someone a piece of shit. The current status quo just says "welp someone just committed a crime again, let's lock em' up, blame their illusory free will for their actions, and not do shit to change society."
In light of your first point (1. Politics can never solve social problems at a root level, because politics is just another element in the soil in which social problems take root) how do you propose to propose accomplishing numbers 2-6?
With reason, virtue and freedom. The opposite of politics.
The current status quo just says "welp someone just committed a crime again, let's lock em' up, blame their illusory free will for their actions, and not do shit to change society."
Yes--much of that is due to the 'average' human being tremendously out-of-step with our growing body of knowledge concerning the root causes of Human behavior & psychology. Then, the system is essentially designed to the breathtaking ignorance of such people while we already have others with actually qualifications in the relevant area(s) who know it is bullsh't & could shed some partial light on the matter (which they are largely barred from, as it is demanded all conform to the norms)
Then, the system is essentially designed to the breathtaking ignorance of such people while we already have others with actually qualifications in the relevant area(s) who know it is bullsh't & could shed some partial light on the matter (which they are largely barred from, as it is demanded all conform to the norms)
Pardon me, but six hours ago you labelled me "dysfunctional" for arguing with the implication that blacks have a predisposed genetic tendency to become murderers.
Your raging hypocrisy is as boundless as the wind.
Do you think males & females are innately different? If so, why? If not, how so?
Yes, one has a dick and balls, the other has a uterus etc. There are also nearly-universal trends when it comes to characteristics like upper body strength, intelligence, temperament etc. Women tend to devote more grey matter to social awareness, whereas men tend to have more spatial awareness and better reflexes etc. There have always been exceptions, and there is a potential for there to be more exceptions. Much of the difference in brain structure and behaviour is due to social conditioning. The basic biology of males and females is hijacked by society and used to engineer "girly girls" and "good little soldiers". In other words, Males and females have different hormonal balances which lead to different propensities but that does not mean it's normal for females to obsess over fashion and celebrities or for men to obsess over football and explosions, this is the nonsense that society programs people with. It's even worse now because they're trying to turn the men into women and the women into men. The result is that masculine and feminine human mentalities don't exist anymore. Now you can either be a cuck, a mindless brutish barbarian, a woman that's actually a man, a man that's actually a woman, or a celebrity culture following witless bimbo. As long as you don't actually think, society will accept you.
In sum, there are innate differences, but much of the psychological aspect is due to social conditioning.
It's even worse now because they're trying to turn the men into women and the women into men. The result is that masculine and feminine human mentalities don't exist anymore.
I don't think it is as bad as all that. I honestly think the neurotypical male-female mentalities DO still exist.
Two of the data points I use to support this is that (in the US) men still account for over 96% of workplace deaths, and over 93% of nurses are women. These stats indicate that men are still driving overwhelmingly toward fields that are "traditionally" masculine (thing oriented), and women are still gravitating, though not to the same degree, toward traditionally feminine fields (people oriented).
What has happened is that the senses of responsibility that used to support those mentalities has been damaged and discouraged .
Instead we have a focus on rights, a lack of systems of personal accountability, a belief that anybody is entitled to be cared for, supported, fulfilled, regardless of personal merit, effort, or success. As a result, many people believe they should be able to be or do whatever they want, regardless of what they themselves, and those around them need.
Among other effects, this mushes out many concepts of identity, particularly gender identity.
The traditional gender roles were a way to make a division of labor that ensured societal needs were met. Gender roles were always about responsibility, not rights.
Consider that when you say, "Now you can either be a cuck, a mindless brutish barbarian...," you are referring to two poles of the irresponsible man spectrum. It is responsibility to protect that requires men to be courageous, willful, and strong (not cucks). It is the responsibility to provide for needs that requires men to be knowledgeable, thoughtful, and kind.
The current status quo just says "welp someone just committed a crime again, let's lock em' up, blame their illusory free will for their actions, and not do shit to change society."
You say that free will is illusory in regard to criminals, then imply that the rest of society has a choice about whether or not to lock them up.
At first I thought you had just written unclearly, so I reread your earlier post to get context to decipher what you meant.
Earlier you wrote,"Instead of punishing people, we need to recognise that humans don't have free will, are not to blame for their actions, and there are causal factors to behaviour which can be CORRECTED."
This is a strange thing to have written for the same reason I stated before. You say people have no free will (which agrees with your statement that it is illusory) but also say we should correct their behavior, as if we have the ability to will ourselves to do so.
As you can see, I cannot tell whether or not you believe in free will. Obviously, if people are unable to choose whether to obey a law, it makes no sense to assume they are able to choose whether or how to change a law, or structure a society.
Conversely, it makes no sense to assert that large numbers of people can choose to come together and apply science "to scientifically understand what makes people the way they are and abate the factors which make someone a piece of shit, *" and simultaneously assert that criminals do not have the ability to eschew criminality by choice.
Which is it, free will or determinism? Do people have the ability to choose our actions or not?
You don't need free will to do those things you doofus, you just need the right information and enough intelligence to apply it. Nothing about Lord Hokage's statement insinuated anyone has free will.
Naruto's argument is that people should behave differently with regard for criminals. By saying people should do things differently, he is implying they have the ability to choose to do things differently.
You are an inconceivably dull alt right moron. And who the blazing clitoral rods is Nomenclature you halfwit cretin?
"People do things, and sometimes they stop doing those things and do different things, therefore they must have free will."
You will never understand bitch titty shit thinking like that. Surely you can do better than to just assume that people need free will to alter their behaviour. All they need is to make the right neural connections. Do you control your brain at a neurological level? No you don't, so shut up you cattywampus wank loving yankee doodle dick lover.
With reason, virtue and freedom. The opposite of politics.
Politics is NOT the opposite of reason, virtue, and freedom.
By our virtue, we know we should extend freedom to all.
By our reason applied to experience, we know all people will not always choose to be virtuous, and cannot always be trusted with freedom.
Politics exists as a reasoned response to the conflicts between the virtuous desire to extend freedom to all and the understanding that virtue is not universal, so freedom cannot safely be extended to all.
But more than that, my experience is that most people, even the virtuous, are simply fearful and short-sighted, and tend to want to truncate or eliminate the freedoms of others in order to feel secure, but without looking at the long-range effects. The conflicts between freedom and security also pit the valid interests and fears of some people against the valid interests and fears of others.
This is why politics exists, as a way for people who disagree to work out in some sort of peaceful and (hopefully) legal way how to apply a reasoned response to the need to structure laws that mete out these conflicts between incompatible interests.
Bear in mind, the following are only basic principles. This is not a model for a government, nor do I mean to imply that there are not valid or important exceptions for implementation of some of the following principles.
- 1 - People are individuals, always and unmitigably.
- 2 - People are flawed as individuals, but we are generally worse as groups. This includes governments, so government should be designed to be weak.
- 3 - Maximum practical freedom must be the paramount aim of any political system. Without freedom, people cannot solve their own problems, or achieve their individual visions for their lives.
True, this means that safety MUST be much lower priority, even if it is number two on the list.
- 4 - To make freedom work, it is important that government does not protect individuals from the consequences of their own decisions and actions.
- 5 - Governments cannot be depended upon to address problems well, efficiently, cost-effectively, or without destroying lives and stealing freedom.
In general, government reactive activities should be limited to doing only those things that enforce the following principles.
-Nobody should be allowed to interfere with anyone else's person or property.
-Nobody should be allowed to create any involuntary obligation on anyone's part.
-Provided the preceding criteria are met, people must be able to do what they like on their own property, provided they pay for it themselves.
- 6 - Government proactive activities should be limited to doing only those things that both are impractical/impossible for people to do without government, and that affect EVERY person in the state/nation.