CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Tural91

Reward Points:17
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
96%
Arguments:19
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

As for creating jobs... Technology has greatly reduced the number of jobs needed. So you have a lot of, well, "shit jobs" with no creative or personal development value being imposed on people in order for them to survive. Most of this work is necessary precicely because of the way we live: 50% in urban areas where there is huge need to maintanence each day. Well, I don't think we need to stop using this mass produciton techonlogy as a whole, but the centralization of power truly makes this the norm all over the world.

Actually, when you think about it, there would be no need for much of the technology in massive production, fast transportation and proceccing of goods that may well have been produced much more locally with very little economic and environmental cost. We could then focus much more heavily in using this high tech to make goods that for some reason cannot be produced more locally, but are nontheless very crucial: medicines perhaps.

So people could still have jobs in high tech industries, and more people could be employed in food production or other projects locally.

These are just speculations

1 point

Spooky! Maybe there is some sort of telepathy going on.

I'm interpreting Chomskys words now, and he's very clear about the U.S. in particular: Todays economic model works very well, but it works for the special interests of the major corporations. They have the ability to create jobs, fire people, buy up property, destroy the environment, merge with others without being held accountable by either their employees, or the population in general. They are the ones with political power in the U.S., politicians are massively pressured to pursue polices that favor them. Because if the rich folks are not happy, they just move somewhere else, or they choose to ruin the economy. They would much rather see the economy collapse, than lose their current positions as masters of power. Basically what you are when hired by such a huge corporation, is a wage slave. Of course you have the ability to give up your job, but very few people can do that without risking absolutelty everything in their lives. And I mean everything.

Now, what needs to be done (in Chomsky's view), is to educate people about what democracy really means: active participation. Today, formally the power resides with the people, but this is just on paper. Yes, they can vote for a candidate, whose opponent will carry on 99% of the same policy... But there is a very big difference between formal and actual democratic power. This means decentralization, strenghtening of communities, common ownership of production at a specific facotory... Of course, also we need bureaucracy, but today this is way out of what's efficient. One of the key issues is to regocnize the "limits of institutions" as Chomsky puts it. We need them, but only to a degree that enhances life for the people they affect, and the concentration of power in the top is very anti-democratic. The "bosses" have to be way more vunerable to critique from the public. An example of people trying to do just that was the Occupy movement: They are the ones in charge, they screwed up, they should pay. Not our tax money. When you think about it, it's just absurd!

1 point

Yes! What you're describing there is Libertarian Socialism, where people are impowered when it comes to production ect., although without an authritarian state

1 point

I see your point a little clearer now, you were referring to what makes people who are actually fighting the wars do what they do, and that's manufactured differences, true.

It's just that the claim that "by uniting, we prevent wars" and then giving the US an an example didn't catch on with me. The US has had an incredibly violent past, and the present is also not too good. With very high levels of violence and occupation of other countries for no other reason than exploitation, wrapped in a nice gift bag of democracy & peace (read Chomsky's "Understanding Power").

So I completelty understand that uniting is one aspect of what we need to do, but perhaps a decentralization process might be even more conducive to peace. As the chance of getting hold on highly concentrated central power sinks, few would have the capacity to ruin another group of peoples lives by war.

1 point

Well said. I recommend to watch this hilarious comment on the issue. Just brilliant.

Burden of proof
1 point

Claiming that for every scientist supporting man made climate change, there is another disputing it, is just false. 97% of scientists agree that it is true, 2% are neutral, and 1% deny. 1%. So there you go.

And every single national or international body of science supports man made climate change. So unless there is a global conspiracy to fool the human race, which there is no evidence for, I must say that your argument holds no water.

And this constant focusing on the earth being around for so long, and that variations have always occured is like saying to a near dead patient: well, you have had this disease before, it didn't kill you, so there is no need for medicine really. You'll probably just be fine, and recover like last time.

The fact is that CO2 traps heat, that has been proven. It has also been proven that small variatios of CO2 have a huge impact on vegetation and temeprature, in controlled experiements. So it is clear: taking the risk is just not worth it, EVEN if we are wrong. Because the consequences are making the entire planet uninhabitable. If there was even a slight chance of this being the case, it surely is enough to take action.

2 points

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I just added my own argument on the opposing side, and I thought you could see who downvoted an argument (new to this). I just disagree with you regarding what causes wars today MAINLY, and in my opinion it's the fight and control over natural and human resources, not skin color, religion etc. Although those factors contribute.

I don't think you are completely wrong, I just don't think that's the main reason for war today. A recent example is the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan, over oil resources.

1 point

I'm just saying: agreed. If there actually is a God, and it is the one Christianity preaches, well, I want nothing to do with him, and I think he is a manipulative being. "Born with sin"? That is so offensive, I don't know where to start! I was born with the burden of all humanities mistakes before even having the chance to get a parking ticket, it's like being put in jail as an infant because your father was a criminal! And the only way to save my soul is to believe in a being far above who only reveals himself when it suits him, often on barren hilltops!

If he doesen't get my scepticism, and wants to punish me for my own thoughts, which he in fact (presumeably) made possible, then I say: Dude, thanks for life and all, but leave me alone, and if you want to burn me in hell when I die, fine. I'll bring some marshmallows with me.

1 point

Ok, I'm going to clarify something people tend to ignore when discussing this issue: The only way to fully establish a cause-effect relationship, is to perform a controlled experiment, most preferably in a lab. There, you can keep all variables in check except two: the independent variable and the dependent variable. The independent variable can only then be directly linked to, the dependent one. You vary the independent variable, too see what effect, or if, it has an effect on the dependent one. (Human GHG-emissions ---> Climate Change)

Now, the data that supports man made climate change is gathered globally, and it is very strong. But of course, it can never, ever control every variable that contributes to changes in the climate. In that sense, when deniers tell: "prove it" or "it has not been 100% proven yet", they are actually demanding scientists to turn the entire earth into a lab, and control every variable except human activity, too see if the earth is still warming. Possible? In fantasy-land maybe.

So, to conclude: we have to admit we can never control the earths climate-variables, so the most plausible answer to this question, relying on the data of 97% of climate scientists, including every singe national science academy in the world, is that we are affecting the climate, and that we need to do something about his. I strongly recommend this hilarious comment from David Mitchell, who is basically pointing out the same thing. 3 minutes of clarifying genius.

Burden of proof
4 points

Well, religion has both a personal, spiritual dimention and a social dimention. I want to make it clear that the social dimention is the one wich has the potential to be dangerous. If someone has a world view which is considered the truth, no matter what information later is apparent, that is very dangerous, and can lead to fanaticism.

Now, if a belief system is closely tied to your social group, your main source of belongingness, and this groups turns radical, it is very conducive to war. Simply because we do just about anything to maintain our bonds with the poeple we love the most (which ironically leads to hate against the ones who do not share your beliefs).

People that we have known our whole lives, and share a history with, are very strongly tied to our own self image and feeling of identity. The sad part is though, that this then leads you to lose your own integrity, in the pursuit of maintaining the integrity of your group. You lock your mind in one belief system, that just cannot be rocked by anything. If your group or personal belief is threatened, either physically or simply denied, the flight-or-flight response which is supposed to save your life is activated. We are genetically hardwired to believe in something, a lot of science suggests. This does not mean that God exists or that there is deity in us, it's just that our urge to want to understand the world as a place with meaning and order is so incredibly strong. It's tough to admit that we know so little, and are so small in the vastness of it all.

Sacrifice is sometimes necessary in order to keep a social bond with the ones who matter to you the most. But when social bonds are so closely linked to a belief system, and that belief system can have leaders organizing the entire group to do something for the sake of "God", or any other external form of moral imperative, a lot of horrible things can happen. We lose touch with the actual world.

Tural91 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here