Debate Thread

JT_the_Ninja wrote:If they're going to die, they'd better do it! and decrease the surplus population... []

Charles Dickens approves.

Just providing interesting counterpoints/reductios ad absurdum as the debate ninja. []

Well you also must take into account medical assisted suicides, if someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain you should at least grant them the wish to have the release of death.

That's not suicide, that's euthanasia, which has too many vowels and is a different issue.

If someone isn't likely/is definitely not going to survive their illness it is a very different scenario than someone who is depressed.

Interesting thought: anyone who's played Halo will know that if your own actions lead to your character's death, the announcer calls out "Suicide." With the cheapening of the concept of life brought on by respawning ten seconds after dying, does the word lose its impact? []

Only in context, I think.

I wonder if the concept of death can be dulled by repeated, consequence-free death in video games. I'm not going to argue that video games cause violence (that's ridiculous), but I do wonder if there aren't people who expect respawns in real life (reincarnationists excepted). []

I don't really think so, to be honest.
Maybe, if someone who grew up playing video games never experienced loss of a loved-one or anything involving death in real life.

(Real life has much better graphics anyway.)

Perhaps. []

Perhaps we should move to a new debate: Nuclear Power. I had this one before, but it only got to like 5 posts of discussion. I personally support it, What happened at Chernobyl was because of careless workers in a plant dangerous even by Soviet standards. What could have happened at Three Mile Island is now hardly an issue thanks to modern day safety standards. it seems like everyone is wound up about meltdowns, and yes, while a meltdown would throw a wrench into an entire country, we have people who work around the clock to keep that from happening.

Short term, i'm all for it, long term, not so much. It has it's merits, no harmful exhaust fumes and capability of generating a very large amount of energy in a relatively small area. Safety precautions have gone up and are automated as much as possible, with a large amount of very complicated and expensive algorithms to keep the important systems error-free and running 24/7 for years on end. The chances of a plant blowing up again are very small indeed.
The main drawback is the radioactive waste it produces with massive halflife that we can't really manage. The best solution so far is to encase barrels of it in concrete and bury it somewhere.

I think we can all see that we can't keep stuffing the ground full of radioactive material for ever, but as long as there aren't any inventions that generate the same amount of power on the same amount of land, it's the best thing we've got to power our cities. (Windmills and solar panels are all very nice, but the scale to sustain all the energy needs of even a moderately sized country just too large.)

I end this as i started, it's perfect as a short term solution to replace the old coal-using facilities and such, but we can't use it for ever.

Actually Gorgro the US made a facility (completed and then closed after finishing damn bureaucracy) that was designed for storing, handling and the eventual reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel rods can be reused by reactors designed for them. But no reactors exist as of now so the rods need to be stored until there is enough in supply to run such reactor.

I suppose it's just semantic shift, JT: words changing their meanings and associations. Consider the word "friend" on sites like Facebook: who really has 300 friends?

On the topic of nuclear power, I'm reluctant to support it until we have a feasible disposal idea, and until the whole human race becomes 56% less stupid.

Just look up the Yucca Mountain Repository. The US spent $9 BILLION on a long term facility for handling, storage and eventual processing of spent nuclear rods. A lot of "not in my backyard" politics went into play and now we are back to square one. Spent rods being kept at the nuclear power plants.

I suppose I am just skeptical. I am of the mind that if something CAN go wrong, it will.

Nuclear power is not a good idea until people stop blowing up everything they get their hands on.
(And that's just them trying to cook dinner.)
Seriously, what'll happen if someone decides to blow up a nuclear power plant?
Death, death, destruction, mass panic, WW3.

Jonny wrote:I suppose I am just skeptical. I am of the mind that if something CAN go wrong, it will.

You are telling me, I live on the gulf coast.

Tuomey wrote:what'll happen if someone decides to blow up a nuclear power plant?

Surprisingly little. You do get the fissionable material for nuclear weapons from nuclear power production but its not in any kind of refined form inside the reactor to cause a nuclear explosion. You get a nuclear meltdown and another Chernobyl is what would most likely happen.

...another Chernobyl is surprisingly little?
Right.

Anyway, say there's an explosion at a nuclear plant, even if there was no risk, none at all, not even the slightest bit of any nuclear material of any form going anywhere it shouldn't.. People would panic one hell of a lot.

Most nuclear power plants are huge solid reinforced concrete structures, Chernobyl was not. The incident at Chernobyl was caused by the fantastically terrible idea of trying to run the turbines in a manner that they were not designed for. The reactor was left unshielded and it ran out of control and had a melt down. The explosion was caused by the hot material coming in contact with a body of water and causing a steam explosion.

If a reactor came under attack you could just lock the control rods in place, then you can blow it up all day the reactor is shut down. The real problem would be with the spent rod cooling pools. It only takes 8 ft of water to keep the rods contained, if you could drain out enough water you could let the spent rods get hot again and they would catch fire or melt. But all the rods are submerged in an average of 50ft.

But all that is assuming you can get a large enough explosive inside the structure.

Do parents have any right in deciding their child's future?

Only for stuff like what primary and secondary school they go to.
Not for things like "be a lawyer or a doctor! Live out my failed dreams because I fail at life!"
It's not their life.
It's nothing to do with them and no one should have to aim for a career they would hate.
Sure, stop your kid from doing something stupid. But don't try to get them to change from a valid choice.

And yes, I know that most parents will have to partially or completely finance their kids college years.
If you have a kid, you have to look after them until they can look after themselves.

I've heard a story where a father visited his son's home, and told his son something along the lines of
"Pull your car out of the garage so I can park mine inside. Also, I'm sleeping in your bedroom and I'm having guests over so please don't disturb us."

Because DAMMIT! I OWN YOU AND WHEN I SAY JUMP YOU SAY HOW HIGH YOU LITTLE BASTARD!

I should point out that I don't mean to say people shouldn't respect their parents.

It's just that respect is a two way street and it can never be a one way street.

Rare wrote:Do parents have any right in deciding their child's future?

Yes and no

As a child yes, as an adult no. When a person is old enough to make decisions on their own then they should be allowed to make their own choices. But a lot of things a person would benefit from comes from their parents. Like money for collage, or art school or theater training, ect. Most can not simply afford to indulge someone else in various job training or schools. A lot of parents are motivated to see their children do well and succeed, if they had not been as successful themselves or have been very successful and wish their children to do the same. Parents do have a responsibility to their children to make sure they see commitments through or make good decisions themselves.

Some cases of just cause

"Mom I want to drop out of school and become a meth addict."

"I have fallen in love with someone that has no job, no plans for the future and tho I don't say it but he/she does not treat me with respect while you are not around but you know what is going on because he/she is a manipulative bastard that will only use me."

These are good examples of where parents could have the right to make decisions for their children.

"Dad I found out that I do not want to be a lawyer like I originally thought I had found psychology to be easier for me to learn and I am more attracted to it."

"I have decided to move out of state to pursue my career."

These are examples of where a parent does not have the right to make a decision for their child.