Debate Thread

I think 2Me knows more about bombings in Great Britain than you and it's wise to graciously accept that rather than override him on the grounds that he disagrees with one of your points.

The idea that making guns more illegal won't stop gun crimes is not what I'm contending.

The idea that guns in America are equatable to bombs in the UK and Ireland is what I have a problem with here.
They are different issues.

If you wish to debate about gun control in America, go ahead.
If you wish to debate about terrorist attacks in the UK and Ireland, go ahead.

Simply do not mix the issues and there will be no problem.

EDIT: I should add, two things.
If someone agreeing with my points on gun control had made a similar comparison between guns in America and bombs in the UK and Ireland, their reasoning would still be wrong.
Also, I will be staying out of the debates for the next while to maintain neutrality.

Tuomey wrote:
They are different issues.

I say again, you completely and totally missed the point. Suicide in Japan is a different issue as well, and yet you do not mention it.


I was not saying the issues were similar.

In America, we have mass shootings. In the UK, and Ireland, you have bombings. In Japan, they have a big suicide problem. There are pirates in Somalia. Greece has financial troubles.

Do you see where I am going with this? People argue that gun control has worked elsewhere, and that is true, but that does not mean that it will work in America. Many countries have issues, and just because something works in one country, does not mean it will work in another. In the United States, our laws on bombs are no different, or, maybe even LESS strict than they are over there, and yet we have basically no problems with bombings.


However, bombings and the mass shootings in America, ARE similar, in their outcome, as well as the reasoning behind doing those things. They are always acts of domestic terrorism, they always lead to large loss of life, and there is no simple law that we can enact to prevent it.

Unless you have some way to refute those claims, of course? You say that the bombings in the UK and Ireland are completely different from the mass shootings in America, but you do not give your reasoning. I give reasons as to why they are similar, and you disagree with me, but you give no reasons as to why they are NOT similar.

"Guns" and "Bombs" are not similar, other than the fact that they are both weapons, but "Shootings" and "Bombings" are similar.


Oh, and, as a side note, I would ask you to kindly not delete my posts because you don't like what I have to say. If I break a rule, then feel free, but unless I do so, you are simply censoring me for no reason.


*Ziggy: This has nothing to do with him disagreeing with me. My problem is that he refutes one of my claims, and yet provides no reasoning or evidence to back up his rebuttal. If he wishes to make a claim, then he may do so, but if he provides no reasoning, it is invalid and irrelevant to the discussion. Noise in the wind, basically.

The other issue I have is that he seems to believe he can tell me what I can and cannot speak about. Unless it is against the rules, then I can talk about anything wish, and he has absolutely no right to delete posts he disagrees with, simply because he does not like what is being said.

Again, unless he can provide some sort of evidence or reasoning or explanation as to why the issues are not similar, then he has no place in the discussion. Saying "I am right because I am right and the discussion is over." is not how sensible people debate. Perhaps he is right, I don't know. He could tell me how it really is, and maybe I would change my position, because perhaps he has some sort of knowledge that proves I am wrong. But unless he shows that knowledge, his point is irrelevant, because it cannot disprove my reasoning.

I don't think it's a good idea to say "There's no precedent for this working, so it won't". We have to try! I realize passing legislation isn't always throwing things at the wall to see what sticks(oh wait most of the time it is yeah) but we have to try! It's not going to get better if we just say fuck it because the shit is fucked up. If 'gun control won't work' then what will?

I don't know. No one does, right now, and that's the problem. We can't just permit laws to be created just to "See what happens!"

We have to think logically, and actually tackle the problem, rather than just hoping that legislation we pass will make it go away.

And, the big thing we must keep in mind is that, if we are being realistic, there are some problems that we simply cannot solve. In some countries, it's possible to prevent nearly all the population from owning firearms. But, for obvious reasons, that cannot work here, in the United States. There are simply too many guns out there to prevent people from getting them.

I don't know what will work, but I do know what won't, and banning or even restricting firearms will do absolutely nothing to prevent these sorts of things happening. Even if we strictly enforced the current laws (We really, really don't) then it would still do nothing. And, as history has shown us, useless laws simply cause problems, even if they seem benign. (Pot being banned, marriage being defined as "Only between a man and a woman", etc.)

As I said, I think a good step would be requiring people to take mandatory week long firearm training courses, as well as background and mental health checks. I don't think it will prevent mass murders, but I still think it would be good for people to know how to properly use and maintain a weapon. Hell, it might even deter more "Wannabe" thieves, and"Gansta's" if they knew their targets could be armed and trained.

But, as I said also, it would not prevent people from obtaining illegal firearms, or magically take away the ones they already have.

As a matter of fact, today, a police veteran, after serving for 20 years on the force, killed his wife and seven year old son, caught his house on fire, and then shot himself. Motive unclear at the moment.

So, as I said, preventing the common man from having firearms simply will not work in America. Sometimes we cannot fix things. Sometimes people simply... Snap.

You want to know how they're different?

Only terrorists use bombs in the UK and Ireland.
No other individual may own bombs personally, for there is no legal use.
Bombs are purely an offensive weapon.
There are multiple terrorist groups who are active in the UK and Ireland and for a long time Northern Ireland was practically a warzone.
Making sure bombs are not legal and are found and destroyed and the owners convicted has made Ireland and the UK a lot safer.

There are legal uses for guns in the USA and many people own them.
Any sane adult without a conviction (or passing similar conditions, I understand it's different in different states) may own a gun in most areas in America and may use it in self defense, they're not simply used in crimes.
In America there are both legal and illegal guns.
The right to bear arms is literally written into the constitution.

Also, saying "making bombs illegal clearly didn't work" is actually pretty offensive to anyone who has been affected by the conflicts here.

I'm not continuing to argue on the suicide thing because it's not my argument to have.


EDIT: I'm also going to say that everyone seems to have said everything they wish to say on the gun control debate as we've been rephrasing similar points for a while now.
I suggest moving on to a new debate.

Tuomey wrote:You want to know how they're different?

Only terrorists use bombs in the UK and Ireland.
No other individual may own bombs personally, for there is no legal use.
Bombs are purely an offensive weapon.
There are multiple terrorist groups who are active in the UK and Ireland and for a long time Northern Ireland was practically a warzone.
Making sure bombs are not legal and are found and destroyed and the owners convicted has made Ireland and the UK a lot safer.

There are legal uses for guns in the USA and many people own them.
Any sane adult without a conviction (or passing similar conditions, I understand it's different in different states) may own a gun in most areas in America and may use it in self defense, they're not simply used in crimes.
In America there are both legal and illegal guns.
The right to bear arms is literally written into the constitution.

Also, saying "making bombs illegal clearly didn't work" is actually pretty offensive to anyone who has been affected by the conflicts here.

I'm not continuing to argue on the suicide thing because it's not my argument to have.


EDIT: I'm also going to say that everyone seems to have said everything they wish to say on the gun control debate as we've been rephrasing similar points for a while now.
I suggest moving on to a new debate.

They're also different in how they work, and how you must use them, and the effects they have on a human body, but none of those things are relevant to the conversation.

My point is, that bombings happen, regardless of their legality. It's clearly illegal to blow up a building full of children, but the person who would do such a thing does not care about whether or not it is illegal. It's just as illegal to shoot all those children, but, again, one who would do that is also one who would not care about such things.

Bombs are completely illegal, and, for this reason, only terrorists use them, and that is my point. If guns were completely illegal, then only dangerous criminals would use them, and it would defeat the purpose of the entire law. A gun is a tool, and it's use depends entirely on who wields it. If only bad people use guns, then all guns will be dangerous weapons of death and destruction. Guns can feed your family.


Now, bombs can't really do anything legally. They don't really serve any purpose for the individual, obviously.

But, again, that is irrelevant to the discussion. We were not discussing bombs and guns, we were discussing bombings and shootings, which are two very similar things, in this regard.


Also, I do not see how that statement could be offensive. Making piracy illegal clearly did not stop pirates, making theft illegal clearly did not stop theft, making murder illegal clearly did not stop murder. There is no consolation for people who have been affected by shootings, or bombings, or... Plane crashings...?

In the UK, it's not the law that made it safer. Just because they are illegal, that does not magically make people safer. It's the fact that you can efficiently find and dispose of them that makes things safer. We can't really do that with the mass shootings here, so we need to think of some other way to try and make it harder. Laws will do no good, so we must take action. I don't know what would work, honestly. Putting armed guards in schools would certainly make it harder for people to shoot up schools, but I get the feeling that would create unexpected consequences as well, and it may well create entirely different problems. So, I don't know. But I DO know that more laws won't solve anything.

Hey, remember how Tuomey suggested moving on to a new debate? What we really meant was "Let's move onto a new debate now *cracks whip*."

My only current inner debate is whether to make cookies or to clean the floor.
I propose we tackle the old adage "It is better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission". From the point of view of someone considering the respective repercussions, is this true?

I suppose it depends on the action.
Assuming you care about the person (as opposed to them being a teacher or something)...

1. If the action is likely to benefit the person you would be asking but they would be likely to say no (confining a suicidal person to compulsory psychiatric treatment for example), then yes.

2. If it's likely to benefit someone else without harming the permission-giver, then you should probably go ahead.

3. a. If you're just trying to benefit yourself, unselfishly, you may need to re-evalute your relationship with this person.

b. If you're benefiting yourself selfishly, then it is bad.


(I have a habit of overthinking things.)

It's been a long, long, time since the last politics thing so I think it's reasonable enough to expect people have changed their opinions and I am feeling very lost and disillusioned with my political identity; three questions:
* What system of government would work best for your country?
* If there was one unified government for the entire planet, what system of government would work best for everyone?
* Regardless of what would work best for everyone, what system of government do you believe is the right one?

I know people only like to post serious things in here to prove someone wrong and defend themselves so:
republicans are wrong
democrats are wrong
liberals are wrong
communists are wrong
anarchists are wrong
corporate dictatorship is correct

Damn, I'm disappointed I actually had to take time to remember how my government works (I guess it's cause I barely see it working at all, hey-o)

IIRC...

the United States is a federal government formed by the law of the Constitution (I think that obviously makes it a constitutional republic) and it's constructed out of three branches: Legislative which has our house of representatives and our senate, Executive is our President and Vice President and their cabinet, and Judicial is the law and in charge of legal cases.

We run on the idea of federalism or when the power and ideas are shared and run by the federal government and the states, which brings up the often debated question of "does our government have to much power and does it also control things they have no right controlling". This also means that all 50 states have their own constitution, government and law system to an extent.

We are basically a two-party system (two dominate parties, Republican Conservative and Liberal Democrat that often compete with each other for election) and we vote for our President depending on what party and issues he represents. Technically we have smaller, minor parties enter, but they are almost always dominated over.

When fact-checking this post I found out Australia has a multiple-political party system in which more than two parties are actually elected in and run together? That seems so cool, like "everyone comes and works together" type deal even though that's probably not the case at all.

I view our government like some machine that is nicely built and crafted but can never find the right people to run it properly, but I will say I think it's the most structured so to speak and holds the most potential over any other government in the world.

SQUIGGLES wrote:* What system of government would work best for your country?

Constitutional federal republican and democracy is what we currently run and I like the set up for it. I do think our government has become larger than our founding fathers had structured it for though and we've yet to adjust to it.

SQUIGGLES wrote:* If there was one unified government for the entire planet, what system of government would work best for everyone?

If there was one unified government it would most likely fall under a Federal Republican set up but it would be severely altered. Also that's 'World Government/One World Goverment' theory and if everyone is up for it I'd like to debate it later because it's super interesting.

SQUIGGLES wrote:
* Regardless of what would work best for everyone, what system of government do you believe is the right one?

Pretty accustomed to my current system, because freedom and suffrage and diplomacy, you damn commies.

SQUIGGLES wrote:

I know people only like to post serious things in here to prove someone wrong and defend themselves so:
republicans are wrong
democrats are wrong
liberals are wrong
communists are wrong
anarchists are wrong
corporate dictatorship is correct

*Mostly Yes
*Only kinda yes
*Ehhhh
*DAMN COMMIES
*Not always
*Eh
*Or better yet everyone is wrong

I have no fucking idea what my political standing is because I realized my hatred for people made me more anarchistic than warranted, but I lean almost always towards liberal democrat for voting purposes.

Republicans can have some good arguments points when they aren't being completely insane.

Mmmpph, not gonna bother with quote boxes because they take up too much space.

>Hollyღ>Damn, I'm disappointed I actually had to take time to remember how my government works (I guess it's cause I barely see it working at all, hey-o)
  LOL

>Hollyღ>This also means that all 50 states have their own constitution, government and law system to an extent.
  It always seemed to me like this weakened and divided the U.S.A. but the more that I think about it the less it seems very influential on the average person. What's your opinion on it as an insider?

>Hollyღ>When fact-checking this post I found out Australia has a multiple-political party system in which more than two parties are actually elected in and run together? That seems so cool, like "everyone comes and works together" type deal even though that's probably not the case at all.
  That's the idea, yeah, but it ends up more like a game of "who'll block this proposition first and get paid the most by mining executives"

>Hollyღ>*Or better yet everyone is wrong
  This is the correct answer, yes.

>Hollyღ>'World Government/One World Goverment' theory and if everyone is up for it I'd like to debate it later because it's super interesting.
  Might as well go ahead since no-one else seems to want to give their opinion on mine.

Ziggles wrote:My only current inner debate is whether to make cookies or to clean the floor.
I propose we tackle the old adage "It is better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission". From the point of view of someone considering the respective repercussions, is this true?

It is better to seek forgiveness then to seek permission. There is no sense in seeking permission if you know you will denied and asking first will only put you in double negative with the offended party after you do it.

SQUIGGLES wrote:Mmmpph, not gonna bother with quote boxes because they take up too much space.

>Hollyღ>Damn, I'm disappointed I actually had to take time to remember how my government works (I guess it's cause I barely see it working at all, hey-o)
  LOL

>Hollyღ>This also means that all 50 states have their own constitution, government and law system to an extent.
  It always seemed to me like this weakened and divided the U.S.A. but the more that I think about it the less it seems very influential on the average person. What's your opinion on it as an insider?

>Hollyღ>When fact-checking this post I found out Australia has a multiple-political party system in which more than two parties are actually elected in and run together? That seems so cool, like "everyone comes and works together" type deal even though that's probably not the case at all.
  That's the idea, yeah, but it ends up more like a game of "who'll block this proposition first and get paid the most by mining executives"

>Hollyღ>*Or better yet everyone is wrong
  This is the correct answer, yes.

>Hollyღ>'World Government/One World Goverment' theory and if everyone is up for it I'd like to debate it later because it's super interesting.
  Might as well go ahead since no-one else seems to want to give their opinion on mine.

The new system of replying to people works much easier than using text boxes, super chic.

> Squiggles It always seemed to me like this weakened and divided the U.S.A. but the more that I think about it the less it seems very influential on the average person. What's your opinion on it as an insider
I can see how having such a large variety of laws and regulations and justice systems would cause conflict but it doesn't effect one as much as one would think. You have to be mindful of how a state runs their business when traveling there, but as for weakening and dividing we are surprisingly capable of adapting and tolerating each other. People mostly stick to their state's way of running things or move somewhere they agree with more but rarely does it cause issues.


> Squiggles Might as well go ahead since no-one else seems to want to give their opinion on mine

HEY
I signed up for a bloody political debate
Someone better come in here and be controversial or I will be super mad
Here let me kickstart it.

Republicans are nothing but close-minded bigots who are behind the times and clueless to how the real world works. Their colors are also the colors of communism. They also kick kittens. BLIND kittens.

Those gosh-darned dirty blind kitten-kicking ingrates!

Ooh, that has a nice rhythm to it.

SQUIGGLES wrote:* What system of government would work best for your country?
* If there was one unified government for the entire planet, what system of government would work best for everyone?
* Regardless of what would work best for everyone, what system of government do you believe is the right one?

>FEDERALISM/STATES RIGHTS WEAKENING THE USA
The best system of government for the US is indeed a constitutional democracy, because the place is so damn large. The state governments hold a lot of power as far as lawmaking goes(they're the ones who get shit done), and I feel like we've achieved a pretty good level of federal regulation. However, the inactivity of Congress in the past few years has me worrying that a stronger central government may we required to deal with big issues like climate change, immigration, and marriage equality. The Supreme Court has doing its job judging state laws lately, I dig it.

For the whole planet, I think the concept of an electronic democracy is an interesting one. It's a form of direct democracy in which people participate via a computer network to which everyone has access, and I think it has interesting sociological implications in the future. Right now, however, the standard of living that it requires is far from global, so if we're going full-on World Government, why not socialism? It's the only way every nation would be equal enough to have a say in things. Well, that or dictatorship- Hegemony much?

I think the form of government that is best is the one that works the best. The most interesting and the fairest one, well, I'd say communism, but I have long been resigned to the fact that communism doesn't work. As a government for human beings it will never work.

@Holly: Anarchy doesn't really work either, but gosh darn it if it doesn't sound fun once in a while to cut loose and burn shit down.

>REPUBLICANS
Also, lol, Republicans not being insane. I feel like the main tenets of the Republican party involve being privileged enough that it becomes important that nothing be altered so that you can maintain that lifestyle. Which I know is incredibly biased of me, many Republicans probably care about the poor and ill as much as I do, but there you have it.

Ziggles wrote:Anarchy doesnt really work either, but gosh darn it if it doesn't sound fun once in a while to cut loose and burn shit down.

I don't know where Holly stands on the anarchy spectrum but I think the core tenet of anarchism is a complete lack of hierarchy, not the lack of rules of pure anarchy that I think earns anarchy in general a bad rap. Anarchism lends itself to rules, because of that core tenet; there must be rules made to prevent anyone ruling in an anarchist community. Complete democracy is super compatible with anarchism (and so is capitalism, apparently??). I agree that systems without a strongly defined hierarchy seem unrealistic; I feel like this is because of a failure to exercise temperance more than anything else. I think if we taught our children to obey and uphold their philosophies, instead of the pointless cycle of emotional failure and repentance that I think I see in many attitudes, that an anarchist or socialist government wouldn't seem so far-fetched at all.

Take all that with a grain of salt, though, I feel like I might be a bit wrongly wrong wrong.

>Ziggles For the whole planet, I think the concept of an electronic democracy is an interesting one. It's a form of direct democracy in which people participate via a computer network to which everyone has access, and I think it has interesting sociological implications in the future.

Interesting! I can see the advantage of a global electronic government. I'd imagine it would be cost-efficient (no taxes expended on it) as well as the convenience. The immediate drawback from the idea though is security risks.

>Ziggles Right now, however, the standard of living that it requires is far from global, so if we're going full-on World Government, why not socialism? It's the only way every nation would be equal enough to have a say in things.

I forgot all about Socialism, right on.

Basically Socialism is common ownership, meaning universal resources and decisions are participated by everyone right? In theory this means that products will have been produced to satisfy society's needs as opposed to strictly for profit to make resources globally assessable.

That structure is riding heavily on the assumption people would still find motivation and fulfillment to work now that they are no longer under capitalistic employment. You could argue without the restrictions and stresses of capitalistic employment, such as money being the strict motivator (money which, in this economy, doesn't promise the workers needs for things such as food and shelter will be met in the end) society would only have to work enough to fulfill the direct needs of the people, and such would be more willing to offer their weight in work. But that's placing a lot of faith in peoples mindsets.

Assuming people wouldn't abuse the system, it sounds reasonable, except every country and culture has different needs that they expect to be met, which makes adjusting to Socialism that much more difficult. This also means however that eventually, third world countries won't have to struggle so hard to catch up with everyone else, if we eventually become one unit.

Also with socialism you'd have to be careful not wonder into:

>Ziggles communism.

It just doesn't work because people would rather labor hard for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones as opposed to total strangers, and communism makes everyone equal no matter how hard they work.

>Squiggles I think the core tenet of anarchism is a complete lack of hierarchy, not the lack of rules  

I believe you're right. I'm sure it differs with each type of Anarchy, but Anarchy in general doesn't speak against organization or rules, it speaks against one base government controlling those organization and rules. Anarchy in layman's terms states that we don't need government to act with principle.

Socialist-Anarchist type government really appeals to me. I think I would prefer that over federal government if I had more confidence people could oversee themselves.

>Squiggles I think if we taught our children to obey and uphold their philosophies, instead of the pointless cycle of emotional failure and repentance that I think I see in many attitudes, that an anarchist or socialist government wouldn't seem so far-fetched at all.

This, yes. Beautiful.

I think another problem with Socialism is that in America, it seems to be invoked as some sort of societal bogeyman with little reason given as to why it's so terrible or what it even is to begin with. So from that standpoint, the issue might not be with Socialism itself but rather acceptance of the principles arranged under that title.

I.e. if we were trying to introduce some new system of government.

SQUIGGLES wrote:I think if we taught our children to obey and uphold their philosophies, instead of the pointless cycle of emotional failure and repentance that I think I see in many attitudes, that an anarchist or socialist government wouldn't seem so far-fetched at all.

I guess we'd need to be better people, then, and I don't see that happening.

@Jonny: I totally agree! Ever since the red scares of the sixties, McCarthyism and the rest, all forms of Communism have been rejected as the antichrist by Americans. Since the Eisenhower Doctrine came into effect (offering support to countries resisting the spread of communism) and the Cold War, the American public has been fearing godless commies with their souls full of maggots.
I think it's not because of any problem with Communism itself, and not solely because of the historical precedent, but rather because Americans detest any changes that will significantly alter their lives in any way. It's the same contempt we have for liberals and libertarians who want to make big changes in the way it all works. You'd have to be crazy to want to change the American Way of Life, right?
I'm sure most of that viewpoint is nostalgia for the way things used to be, as perpetuated by baby boomers now dying off. I wonder if we'll wind up doing the same things with our kids.

I believe we have "debated" all there is about the subject if someone else wants to bring up a new topic

Topic: did the jews do it

A: Yes