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 M00k0w

Reward Points:6
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.
84%
Arguments:3
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
3 most recent arguments.
0 points

Seeing the topic only on the front page I come to the idea it is about whether the ban on any material should be reversed and prevented and the answer is absolutely yes.

Departing from obvious points on freedom of ___, neutrality, more importantly information leads to accelerated evolution. The idea that there is damaging information is bunk, because it is only the person who is damaging no matter what they know. Each piece of work, no matter how damaging, blasphemous, or what have you, serves to inform the mind of the possibility of such happening and surrounding idea/emotion, allowing a more complete, objective conclusion to be reached on all past, present and future issues presented to it. The mind is a relative comparator and the biggest repository of comparisons it can make to what it is sensing is what is in the memory. With a broader range of intensity of memories it will both immediately react less intensely to an anomaly given to it as well as know how to better rationally deal with the anomaly having had more experience.

The major issue is the way the information is perceived. Content was historically banned because of belief that it would coerce individuals to act as described or coerce them to choose to coerce others to do such. In this day it is recognized how shielding one from the extremes of possibility lends itself to confusion and misdirection when such possibilities arise. History must be remembered to not be repeated and an imagined story is just as real as something that has happened.

This is all true of course considering there are not actually ideas constructed so perfectly and totally that when perceived from a variety of viewpoints, they can "infect" at least some individuals. By infect I don't mean to be a catchy tune or a good/bad idea to be passed on, I mean real genuine mind control. In the most serious sense it is absolutely feasible and is used daily in marketing for example, but it would work on fewer and fewer people the more influential to their future action it becomes, and would need to be tailed to each specific person based on their past experiences and mindset during such experiences given that a memory can be functionally encoded differently depending again on how the person perceived the situation in the first place. However, given the broad presence of the internet, there is such a large amount of varied content that it is more and more difficult to create unique mental viruses that wouldn't be disturbed by the presence of some conflicting detail or memory from 4chan, raised before the expected one (some heavy influential older memory) necessary to bring the correct details to attention to effectively implement this new thought, association (virus).

Even so, it gives that less educated, conscious, aware and event-filled-memory-possessing individuals would be more susceptible to them; this is simply Darwinism and they will quicker evolve to where they're meant to go whether this idea leads them to do something good, get better at themselves, or serve others.

5 points

Drawing parallels to now-confirmed predictions made by several prophets, remember that humans ultimately perform all of the acts prophesied. The fact that someone said it will happen, followed by the close watch or at least occasional memory by influential figures around the time of the prophesied act, no other time than that makes a better time to actually pull off a crime. It ends up looking "better" that while everyone is looking to prevent such upcoming disasters, the instigators manage to pull them off.

Such is true for anything anyone may believe will happen in 2012, be it earth becoming Eden (out of our own volition) or aliens coming by. They'd choose the time when everyone is listening, everyone is watching the sky. Everyone is quiet, accepting. Submitting. That is when a message is best delivered.

Perhaps the physicists at CERN have figured out how to make the feared "micro black hole" or some catastrophic phenomenon stable, allowing it to influence. Perhaps it will swallow us so quickly we won't see or feel it. Perhaps we will continue to all live past that point, in our own dreams and models of the world, without realizing the point where it shifted over. High level scientists and mathematicians are known to be deeply nihilist.

Perhaps it has already happened

6 points

So the problem here is that the question is loaded. I guess the topic at hand is apocalypse and then the notion of 2012 rises. However it should be looked at as "What will happen in 2012?" The answer to which is a lot, because we think it will.

As far as I know there is a defined second in which this event should happen. Everyone will freeze at this time, and when most likely nothing objectively physical happens, the way life will be resumed by the minds will then be shifted forward in the way wanted by the majority of people.

Many of you can imagine a utopia, or at least some rules that should be changed. The reason why there is no radical shift at once is because when one percent of the population shifts, the other 99% don't flow with it and the status quo is restored by and to the minority. Given a "freeze" by everyone, processes midway which cannot be modified, not allowing the radical shift in mindset, procedure or viewpoint, are mostly stopped or ignored, and upon resuming, now all follow, or have the new majority-shared beliefs weighing into the final outcome.

It could be as simple as people being grateful they remain alive, or laughing at the fact that others thought the world would end. It would be a large deviation from normal vectors that we all compare our everyday percepted information to, and every disaster would seem a bit less bad; "At least we are here to see this 'spilled milk'".

M00k0w 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