Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - 11mc22

Pages: [1] 2 3
2
General Discussion / Ann Coulter==>Hate speech vs free speech?
« on: March 26, 2010, 12:11:12 AM »
Big deal in Canada and everyone is upset with arms flailing about it. Just brings up a question, does free speech give you the "right" to make racist statements? I don't know much about Ann Coulter except for the fact she is like the very definition of a stereotypical republican.

3
General Discussion / Laissez Faire
« on: December 08, 2009, 09:31:10 PM »
1/2 creators of this short film are actually friends of friends of mine.

No joke


4
Episode 4: The War on Drugs / Must Share
« on: December 08, 2009, 04:15:33 PM »

5
Episode 7: Pareidolia / Songs
« on: November 25, 2009, 07:13:46 PM »

6
Future Episodes / Overpopulation
« on: October 15, 2009, 02:35:46 AM »
I'm surprised there was no topic on this. Or was there and I forgot about it????

Anyhow overpopulation is a myth. Even if we are running out of resources the market would reflect this through increases in price and gradually people will have less and less children because maintaining a family is too costly.

I've been debating some fearmongers but their best argument is only valid if there was a sudden mass decrease in supply of oil or any other crucial resource.

7
The Forbidden Zone / Re: Some guy's PM
« on: September 16, 2009, 09:46:32 PM »
It's also called the "Golden Mean Fallacy".
Also, please identify which color refers to you and which color refers to him.
Thanks.

Green = Tom
Red = me
Blue = google search

Sorry I'm just typing this real fast because I got to go now.

8
General Discussion / Some guy's PM
« on: September 16, 2009, 09:35:58 PM »
EDIT: I think I understand his position better because I really no idea what he meant. I didn't realize that his arguments were attempts to morally justify centrism rather than saying "I'm right and you are wrong because extremes are bad". Forget the Fallacy of Middle ground and I'll respond to him as soon as I can. Sorry, I'm not that great at comprehension plus I couldn't make out his argument through all the "I hate ultra-conservatives" rants.
But of course, I still disagree with him.


Green = Tom
Red = me
Blue = google search



"Just pointing out you just committed a fallacy of Appeal to Middle Ground."

Oh is that really a fallacy or something cooked up by Ultra-Conservatives to get Moderates from siding with liberals on everything? Let me go Google that up, since you had the audacity to bring up and then delete your own message like the cowardly asshole that you are.

I can only find stuff about McCain, Clinton, and something from emeraldinsight.com.

'Usually the appeal to middle ground meets with the approval of most team members who are given adequate time for group discussion and for individual'

Doesn't make this "fallacy" of yours sound bad.

However if I google "appeal middle ground" without the quotations, I get argument of moderation.

"a logical fallacy which asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct."

Now this doesn't sound like what I was talking about, now before you perform some sort of intellectual fallacy off misrepresenting what I have said, let me show you why what I have said is not a logical fallacy.

This argument is based on the premise of treating any two positions as extremes and anything in the middle as the correct choice.

What I have said is that you pick positions that are actually from the extremes, not making up extremes and choosing that position. For instance, America is a country devoted towards competition. You have two major opposive views completely opposite of one another in regard to healthcare, one says pure government oversight, one payer system, right? The other complete privacy of healthcare. These are opposite views and are supported by the extremes on the spectrum of left-right policy positions. I am not making the two be extremes, they already are. Ultra-Conservatives, which are people who despise any government involvement are against Ultra-Liberals, which are people who support any or all government involvement. Does this make any sense to you?

I make a clear observation. There are obvious extremes when it comes to politics. We call people who support terror to be extremists. Being an extremely simply means you take a notion or idea completely and may even use force or political discurse to insure your objectives. This isn't far from the definition of an extremist and many people who supported the loud ranting of people in public hall meetings are clearly extremists or extremist supporters. Now since we have to be fair to the right, by saying the left also does the same thing, which actually is an intellectual fallacy, but of course being libertarian you are just going to ignore that part, since you believe it is true even if it is an intellectual fallacy.

Now the extreme right want absolute no government involvement. The extreme left wants absolute government involvement. These are facts and clear observations, once you know what an extremist is and how to differentiate the left form the right. What lies in the middle, is moderate or centrist ideas. America is a Centrist country and from being Centrist it has done quite well. This does not support any bit in following centrist ideas just because the country is centrist. But clearly, the appropriate laws to make have to support or be supported by the majority of people in the country. The majority of people in the country are centrist, meaning they would support a moderate or centrist law. Or at least they should by practicality. Doesn't mean they always will, because there are influences such propaganda and Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh and Libertarians who are extremists, but try to present themselves off as a third-way appeal to people between Republicans and Democrats.

Obviously people are not really that smart and they can be easily fooled into following the wrong ideas. They can accidentally give up their liberties for no reason at all.


"Its like saying believing in evolution without a supernatural entity is an extreme position, and therefore it must be false."

Uhh... that is obviously an intellectual fallacy. You should correlate law making with science. First of all, there is hardly anything scientific or scientifically proven through most of the garbage made up in politics. Second, I am atheist if you haven't noticed. I don't believe in a god and even though I find some religions like Wicca to be less stupid than others (namely Islam and Christianity), I still reject following any religion, because I don't need religion nor do I want religion in my life. Third, no act with science is extreme unless it involves extreme notions or practices such as testing on live human beings in a way that is inhuman or some psuedo-scientific view like was utilized quite largely throughout the early twentieth century. But the theories are not extreme, however since they come from inductive research they are clearly subjective to change or even disproval. Uhh... if the intelligent design people or creationists want to present their views into science books, they need find a way to present at least a very intelligent hypothesis that at least can be mentioned briefly in a paragraph in a textbook. Since I doubt they can do that, I sincerely don't think anything of such could inteligently be included into a textbook.

"There are cases where "extreme" positions are true."

Name me one.


I left out one sentence he made responding to my comment but that was because it was my fault and I said something I didn't mean to say.

This was a response to my comment which was a response to this comment made by the same person:


Any extreme is a bad idea. ANY EXTREME! Libertarianism is an extreme. Between the spectrum of Autocracy to Anarchy, Libertarianism stands a smidget more Autocratic than pure Anarchy.

What is good is balance. Balance government. Checks and Balances. Elections. Federalism (rather than Confederalism or Unitarianism). With these there is no need for guns to make a coup.

In fact if you used your gun to take out what you deem to be an oppressive government, you would break the law.


I won't respond to him only because I'm seriously not looking for a debate especially in a PM.
To tell you the truth I kinda like the 500 character system because it makes them get to the point rather than go off on a bunch of insults and pointless rants. Plus I really don't have any motivation to read anything beyond 500 characters.
by the time I read the first sentence I just skim to the last sentence.

9
General Discussion / Problem with the forum
« on: September 06, 2009, 03:56:12 AM »
The "show unread posts since last visit" link isn't working

I click on it but it says I've read everything but on the forum it says there are new posts.
It used to work

10
Future Episodes / Free trade vs Fair trade
« on: August 06, 2009, 03:10:02 AM »
I have no clue
I'm surprised no one brought this up though

anyways one anti-free traders is Ha Joon Chang and hes worth looking into. Hes wrote some books like "kicking away the ladder" and "bad Samaritans"

If you have any arguments for or against free trade like the whole Africans and Mexicans decreasing employment thing then post them here.
On youtube you'll probably find nothing but anti-globalization topics.

11
Episode 4: The War on Drugs / Blades
« on: July 30, 2009, 01:02:08 AM »
Any Idea why Butterfly knives and Switchblades are illegal in some states and countries like Canada?

Concealable? you can hide all kinds knives anywhere any way you like and they are just as concealable as any other. You can freaking hide a sawed off shot gun for gods sake.
Fast to take the blade out? Butterfly knives takes skill to open it properly. My friend who bought a Butterfly knife in Chinatown (illegally) kept getting cut because he couldn't even open it right. There are also many legal foldable knives out there you can tweak so it acts just like a switchblade.

There is almost NO justification to make these things illegal
you might as well have some sort of mandatory background checks for kitchen knives too.

12
General Discussion / Foreign Movies
« on: July 27, 2009, 05:04:36 PM »
I liked this movie
Two thumbs up


13
Episode 4: The War on Drugs / Ritalin and Adderall
« on: July 20, 2009, 05:49:14 PM »
Should the government be a bit more open and loose with these drugs?
They help ADHD patients but help normal people with concentration and focus.

There aren't that many health problems with these drugs

At least I don't think they do

lots of people say that its unethical and unfair for students to use these drugs while other students work their asses off trying to get their homework done.
But then we would have to ban tutoring, caffeine, sleeping extra early, healthy eating or force everyone to use them if we wanted to have a "fair" system.

My friends take them with a prescription even though some of them don't actually have ADHD or ADD.
They probably faked the ADD ADHD test.

I could use one right now to help me in physics...

14
Episode 4: The War on Drugs / Assisted Suicide
« on: July 12, 2009, 04:01:05 AM »
I wanted to put this on the War On Drugs forum only because it involves the right to your own body.
I think it should be legalized. BTW this topic is towards the ones that are ill and about to die.

The value of one's life is very subjective don't you think? To say that the value of my life is based on the collective and all decisions on my life is based on the collective seems coercive. Theres a bunch of counter arguments that say after being treated less than some one digit percent will commit suicide later. But then who is benefiting? The collective who feels that they want you to live and therefore you should live. All this psychiatry does is influence you to raise your life's value and to be "happy" even with all the pain.

I heard this argument where the opponents say that you won't be better off when you are dead. Well duh? You're going to die anyways and it won't make a difference if you die now and just end it all or die later after all the pain and suffering. Even if hell and heaven existed you're not going to one afterlife based on if you die sooner and the other afterlife when you die later. Its Pascals wager.

And no one is going to wait until someone proves or disproves the afterlife or which religion is the right one.

Anyways I want some REAL GOOD arguments against my view for the sake of learning.
For clarification this is for the people who are dying already, not the ones who are just depressed.

Pages: [1] 2 3