As in "The first stage of insanity is denial of insanity", or "the first stage of indoctrination is denial of indoctrination". For you smart cookies out there, basically the Kubler-Ross model.
So, is it true or false?
That new year's wine makes me think.
The topic of existence is one that seems painstakingly obvious at first, but then becomes increasingly difficult as more thought is put into it. The question is simply:
What is existence?
So I was trawling through some old posts of mine, and I thought to myself "Gee, I was a fucking idiot back then". But over time, I'd like to think I've learned a fair chunk from discourse on this site, in pretty much every area: religion, politics, even trolling.
To which I ask; what have you learned in your time on this site?
I was just gonna post this as "Pro-lifers", but I didn't want to generalise too much.
In general though (lol), pro-lifers tend to be conservatives. Conservatives believe in the limitation of government on issues that are not black and white. So why is it that on abortion, an issue that is not black and white (and I defy those who say so), do conservative pro-lifers want government regulation on abortion? I know that they will argue that it's the infringement of a life worth defending on a federal level, but because that's contentious, shouldn't the conservative in them say that government should stay out of it?
Well, that's Chuck's merry Christmas debate, hopefully you'll all be pissed off in time for Santa ;)
Both provide support for the people. Both provide a big brother like father figure. Both cause violence and peace. Both are heavily criticised by skeptics. Both give individuals a scary amount of power, approved by the nation or God respectively. The only difference?
Religion is dying; government isn't.
There'll be a tl;dr for lazy bums at the bottom of this description.
Recently I've been wondering whether there is an ideology which would ultimately succeed as being the unfifying force for humanity. Marxism is a great idea, with everyone united and working for the same cause. A society where everyone is given the opportunity to succeed if they contribute, and one that discourages greed. However, history shows us that Marxism is easy to corrupt, and usually ends up with power in the hands of the elite while the ones contributing are starved, both literally and figuratively.
Capitalism too is a great idea. People make themselves, and can live as close to an independent, individualistic life possible. In capitalism, the true power of human competition, innovation and determination is highlighted. But capitalism faces major problems with corporations expanding to the point where they influence government and kill the market. Truly free markets are also not immune to flaw (I know prayerfails, it must be hard to believe). A truly free market is full of hitmen, where everything is for profit. The poor will be leeched off of, and abandoned as if they were gum on someone's shoe. Imagine if the G4 security fiasco before the Olympics occurred in a country with no government intervention. The results would be horrifying.
Then there's whether government should be large or small. Large government offers security to all, but punishes success through tax, and is less productive. Small government sees productivity increase, but can see large amounts of the population sniped off by ruthless businessmen, who don't have an obligation to help the people.
With all these complicated things, I was thinking that the best answer may be the most simple. What is the most simple, fundamental tenant of one how should live their life? The golden rule:
Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself
Could we not have a society operate fully functionally based on that sole principle? No markets, no government, no corporations, no coercive entities to take control. A completely voluntarist society where people help each other because they get help back. This has never been tried in the civilised world, only tens of thousands of years ago, before we even had the brain power to come up with the golden rule. Surely, with our 21st century minds, we could make this work without resorting to tribalism?
Tl;dr: Could a society with no markets, governments, or any coercive entities succeed if it was based solely around the golden rule?
Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (racists, in case you didn't know), has said that we have the right to discriminate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20000954
Well... do we?
Recently in Ohio, a bus driver punched a teenage girl who was reportedly taunting him throughout the journey. He then threw her off the bus. After the incident, much fuss was raised on the bus about how the driver attacked a female in particular, to which he responded: "If she wants to be a man, I'll treat her like a man."
Was the bus driver justified in his use of physical force? If women want the same rights as men, should they also accept a man using the same physical force against women as men? Can violence from a man to a woman ever be justified?
Video found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=J-dRSqJRI_Y
I must admit, debate aside, that driver has one hell of an uppercut. He went fucking Captain Falcon on her ass.
A couple of days ago, PETA released a very short parody of the popular pokemon games. It was to raise awareness of animal cruelty, and all that hoo hah. Unsurprisingly, the game has been slammed for infringing several copyrights, portraying Nintendo's product in an inaccurate way, and generally being pretty shit.
What do you think of this? Was this the right way for PETA to garner attention for themselves? Does the message they give justify completely ignoring copyright laws?
At the very least, play it:http://features.peta.org/pokemon-black-and-white-parody/
I can assure you, it will be the most cringeworthy and childhood destroying 15 minutes of your life.
Is there anyone here who has been an atheist all their life?
It just seems that whenver I look at religious debates, the majority of atheists I've seen will say that they used to be religious, but turned away from it. Which makes me wonder is there anyone here who has been an atheist all their life?
I have been, despite going to a Christian school and being raised by a fundamentalist Aunt. I hope I'm not forever alone...
Christians: Why do you believe Jesus is the messiah?
It's just something I find very interesting. The Jews don't believe Jesus is the messiah, because they say he didn't fulfill all the messianic prophecies. So if he didn't fulfill them all, why do you believe he is the messiah? Maybe he did fulfill them all? Perhaps it was personal experience? I'm eager to know.
Atheists, Muslims, Jedi and the like are also welcome to post, but I'd rather this didn't turn into a "Is Christianity true" or "Does God exist" debate? I'm not gonna ban anyone for it, but I'd still like to get a clear answer without having to read through pages of talk about evolution or something.
Let me know.
A society without any values, no matter how silly they are, cannot last more than a couple of generations, and will ultimately fail.
Or will it?
What's to stop a hedonistic, anarchistic society from doing as well as an ordered society with intrinsic values?
You tell me...
I was in a debate, and I was asked to link to an argument I had already made a while ago. Although I found it, it did take me an inconvenient amount of time.
I don't know if it's just me, but I would really like a searchbar on your waterfall, so you can find specific arguments with greater ease.
It's nothing major or urgent, but I think it would help with the overall acessibility of the site.
Damn I want a music section.
Anyway, Muse were voted the most exciting live act ever by NME recently, beating the likes of Queen, Led Zep and the Who. I'm a massive Muse fan, but I'm not sure I'd call them the most exciting EVER.
Lemme know what you think, and feel free to share any memorable live experiences you've had in the past.
Article can be found here: http://www.nme.com/news/muse/65720
So I saw a debate called "Which is the longest word ever?" And I was ready to smack that bitch up like Chris Brown on a Friday night. I got my chemical name of Titin, all 189,819 letters of it, manually typed it for at least 8 years, only to find this:
Well I for one, am muthafucking tired, of these muthafucking character limits, on my muthafucking arguments!
Everyone uses at least 50,000 characters in their posts... right? Right?
God can never be proven or disproven. No-one will ever find out.
So why give a shit about religion? The concept of God is distorted and meaningless, and the same debates over and over solve nothing. Therefore, apatheism is the only rational position.
OK, I'm really concerned for my state of mind now.
The new principal at our school seems to base his policies on Maoist China. When he first came in, he changed our learning structure. OK, fair does. But he represented it by... making himself his own cartoon... where he was Superman... saving kids from bad education...
Then, he started putting up HUNDREDS of photos of him, smiling with other children, who have a look that says "Ok, I'll smile if you move the gun away from my head".
Then, he bought a giant TV, andput it up in the main entrance, where it plays nothing but propaganda of how great him and his school is.
Now, there are rumours he's bought a speaker system, so he can play motivational messages to us during our lessons, like "We love the dear leader", and whatnot.
I'm scared... has he formed a cult around himself? I'm all for privatization, but this is kinda ridiculous.
Many theists don't accept the validity of "The origin of species" or "A brief history of time", yet still they are allowed to be used in debate. However, theists using scripture in debate is frowned upon, and often prohibited.
My question is, that if there is no universal standard by which evidence can be judged, how can it be fair to prohibit one side from using their's?
I recently did a debate entitled "do the dead have rights"? The general consensus was that the dead do not have rights.
So what exactly is wrong with grave digging/robbing? Aside from appeals to emotion, can the action be deemed morally wrong? And, should grave digging be outlawed?
PLEASE NOTE: I am not advocating robbing graves in this debate. While I'm sure there is much plunder to be had, I don't think the outcome of an online debate is gonna save your ass in court.