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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Here is Joe_Cavalry's Utopia
OK, please bear with me and don't give up reading half way through. I promise to tie it all in at the end.
I see life as a video game and the world as the gaming console. The different places (country, state, city, whatever) sets the boundaries for a given game. The world can support many different games.
So..., if you want to be a pirate, go to Somalia. If you want to be a terrorist, go to where the terrorist are. You want to play Mafia Wars, find a family and see if you become a "made man." The different games are almost endless. The problem we currently have is that these games cross boundaries. For example, those playing terrorist cross over into the lives of those trying to play a romantic comedy.
In my Utopia, people can go to a specific place and play that specific game but they can't go to a specific place and play a different game. That way we can have a place where gay marriage is the norm and another place where marriage is only between a man and a woman. A place where monogamy is the norm and a place where polygamy is the norm. There would be a place for pople who believe in abortion and a place for liberals and a place for conservatives, etc. And people would be able to leave a game at any time and not be forced to stay and play.
In that case, this wouldn't work, because people would be to busy trying to impose their morality on the players of other games.
The Pro-Life games on the Pro-Choice games and vice versa, the Religious Zealots on the Gay games, the Terrorists on the Christian games...etc etc etc.
The natural human tendency to dominate would make it impossible for anyone to be content in their game.
You're right. That's the problem I'm trying to solve. If people would just stay in their "chosen" game and let the other players do their own thing in their "chosen" game, then we wouldn't have the kinds of problems we have today.
The argument Joe seems to be making goes beyond that. If abortion is illegal within your jurisdiction, you can not perform the procedure. The same is true with all types of things, Gay marriage, Gambling, Terrorism, etc etc.
I think you'll find that Joe's "argument" isn't an argument at all.
It's not even an idea that has been thought through for more than a milli-second.
It's yet another example of the shallow garbage that is spouted by individuals who hate or cannot comprehend the fact that people are diverse.
It is foolish to presume that just because someone likes Gambling, that they would get along well with other people who also like Gambling, in a place where Gambling is allowed. Or that Terrorists would get along with other Terrorists on the basis that they are both Terrorists.
So Joe's Utopia would require for us to rearrange the terrain in such a way that each one of us lives on an island, alone.
My wording was incorrect, it indeed isn't an argument.
In any case, I think it is actually a case of black and white, however not like your putting it. Supposedly in each of these games people would be able to do the things they wanted, with other people. And yes, they would have those things in common. If you wanted to get more diverse in regards to goals and 'getting along' I'm sure there would be a 'Muslim Terrorist' game and a 'Christian Terrorist' game that would get increasingly specific.
I'm also fairly certain that you would be able to join more than one game, so the focus would be on the similarities of the players in that one game, even if in other regards they aren't remotely compatible.
I'm also fairly certain that you would be able to join more than one game, so the focus would be on the similarities of the players in that one game, even if in other regards they aren't remotely compatible.
Which is what we have now.
A society where people who are otherwise remotely compatible, and yet play all kinds of games with each other.
You have to distinguish between ideas that are proposed through a sincere attempt to make the world a better place, and ideas that masquerade as helpful prepositions and yet fundamentally are nothing but an expression of fear and hate.
I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that my idea is an expression of fear and hate.
If my idea was truly an expression of fear and hate,
I would just say, "kill them!"
I would say, "Force them to change!"
Instead, I am saying, "OK, you want to do that? That's fine. I respect that. I hope you respect the fact that I do not want to do that. So why don't you go over there and do your thing and don't come over here and force your views/values down my throat. Deal?"
I'm not debating the intentions of the idea, I'm debating the feasibility.
Your reply doesn't answer the rest of my own reply, so I'll assume you concede those points?
In any case, you may have misunderstood. I'm not talking about the ability to be compatible, but that while in the game, whether it be a Pro-Choice game or a Terrorist-Game [more specific, of course] they would be focused on the similarities and nothing else.
I called it a Utopia because I do not believe that it is feasible. I recognize it for what it is.... a pipe dream.... a wish that has no basis in reality. My own personal desire.
OK, so let me see if I understand you correctly. y goal is to minimize conflict. I want a world were people who want to kill are free to live in an area with other people who also want to kill and who don't mind being killed. I also want a world where those who want to kill leave those (who don't want to kill and who don't want to be killed) alone... just let them be. And you see this as me being a hate filled person? If I were a hate filled person I would say, kill those who are trying to kill.
I mean, it's a no brainer. If you don't like a group of people, then stay away from them, avoid conflict, don't start killing them. How hard is that?
I want to tell people, you cannot come here and do "blah." If you want to do "blah" go over there. My approach is tolerant of the views of others. I don't want to force people into changing their views. They can keep whatever views they want.
You, on the other hand, want to force people into changing their views to match your views. You want to force everyone to accept and tolerate everyone you decide is worth tolerating. And you call me intolerant and hateful?!?!?! WTF?
You try to come across as all tolerant/benevolent and the first thing you do is try to pin negative labels on me (hateful, shallow, presumptuous, uncomprehending). Does anyone else here on CD see the contradiction or is it me?
I mean, it's a no brainer. If you don't like a group of people, then stay away from them, avoid conflict, don't start killing them. How hard is that?
Not hard at all Joe. I'm glad you see that.
But you don't need to be physically away from people you don't like.
I want to tell people, you cannot come here and do "blah." If you want to do "blah" go over there. My approach is tolerant of the views of others.
No. No it's not Joe.
Your first two sentences contradict the third.
I don't want to force people into changing their views. They can keep whatever views they want.
That's good. But it's only part of your Utopian picture. The other part is the bit where you force what views are accepted in a certain area.
And most importantly, what views are incompatible with other views.
You, on the other hand, want to force people into changing their views to match your views.
No Joe.
I'm happy living amongst people with all kinds of views.
I'm not the one advocating that anybody who doesn't think like me should go live somewhere else...
You want to force everyone to accept and tolerate everyone you decide is worth tolerating. And you call me intolerant and hateful?!?!?! WTF?
I haven't forced anybody to tolerate nobody. Neither have I ever expressed a desire to have such power. If you have any evidence of the contrary please do tell.
You try to come across as all tolerant/benevolent and the first thing you do is try to pin negative labels on me (hateful, shallow, presumptuous, uncomprehending).
I do think you are all those things.
But that doesn't stop me from tolerating the fact that you are here.
I'm happy living amongst people with all kinds of views.
I haven't forced anybody to tolerate nobody. Neither have I ever expressed a desire to have such power.
OK, so..., for example..., you are happy living among people who think that gay marriage is an abomination and you would do nothing to try and force them to change their point of view and force gay marriage down their throats...., right?
OK, so..., for example..., you are happy living among people who think that gay marriage is an abomination...
I may not agree with the view, but I accept the people.
I do not wish that they would somehow go away.
Those same people are probably responsible for hundreds of good deeds.
...you would do nothing to try and force them to change their point of view..
Force them? No.
I would not force anybody to change their point of view.
But that doesn't stop me from starting a dialog with them.
It doesn't stop me from debating or reasoning with them.
..and force gay marriage down their throats...., right?
For me to force gay marriage down their throats, I would have to put a gun up a straight man's head and force him to marry another man.
Because that is what constitutes "forcing gay marriage down their throats".
So far I have never heard a gay person wanting to do that, so you can relax.
What YOU mean however, is that you demand to have a say on what other people do, even if what they want to do has nothing to do with you, is not illegal and doesn't hurt anybody.
This is no different to: a child that is about to eat some chocolate, and another totally unrelated child throwing a fit about it and demanding that the first child not eat the chocolate.
You are the unrelated child that is throwing the fit. Not only are you throwing a fit, but you are now dreaming of a Utopia where that other child wouldn't be allowed to eat chocolate if he chooses to live in the same place as you.
That is how ridiculous and unreasonable you are.
But regardless of what I think of you, I'm still happy to tolerate you.
You are totally misrepresenting what I meant AND what I said.
My Utopia is a place where conflict is eliminated. I never said that I wanted a say in what people do. I have said that I don't want to be forced into anything. The way you twist my words makes me think you have mad cow disease ;)
How do I avoid conflict? Simple, through a compromise. If one side refuses to compromise then it is trying to force it down the other parties throat. Simple as that.
But you don't need to be physically away from people you don't like.
OK, so living in close proximity to people you don't like comes naturally like..., oh, I don't know..., how about the Palestinians and the Israelites; or Muslims and Christians in Malaysia? And, not only does it come naturally, but it is also not wrought with all kinds of problems. Right?
I mean, granted, there are people who would kill those they don't like (for whatever reason) and those people are wrong (the killers). They need to be taught how to get along with other people and people have to die until the killers learn their lesson.
So we should never give in to any terrorist demands. If they are pissed off that our "infidel" military is physically on what they consider to be sacred soil...., then tough, too bad! They need to learn to get along with us. And the Palestinians need to learn to get along with the Israelites and the Muslims need to learn to get along with Christians and pro-lifers with pro-choice and gays and heteros and the list goes on and on and on.
We should do nothing to try and accommodate these people somehow. They just need to learn to get along. So what if that approach hasn't worked since the beginning of time. ;)
That's not true. In a Muslim society a woman cannot decide she doesn't want to wear a burka and leave the country to live in a place where she doesn't have to. Especially since in those societies they don't allow women to get an education or have their own money.
Education = job = money = freedom .... I know, simplistic but you get the point.
Is this a joke regarding my [serious] post on my debate 'Animal Pornography,' in which I said that a Sudanese man married a goat after he was caught copulating with it.
I know. It's kinda like living in a video game. Right? The only thing I would add is some device that would be surgically attached to you that could monitor your vital signs and when death was eminent the device would say, "Game over!" ;)
This utopia sounds good, but if some one commits a crime in one utopia, and then moves to a different utopia, is he still in the jurisdiction of the other utopia, so that he can be prosecuted for his crime?
We are too hung up on punishing ourselves and each other. Have you known animals to punish each other?
But I would allow punishment. I would support a quick punishment. Not keeping someone in jail for years. Mainly because it doesn't really rehabilitate anyone (it doesn't work) and also because I don't want to pay for it. Just whip the guy, cut off his hand, shoot him in the head, I don't care, just get it done and over with.
